NJ Court: Sending a Text Message To a Driver Could Make You Liable For Crash

C0R1D4N writes "A New Jersey Appeals Court has ruled that both sides of a texting conversation which resulted in a car accident could be held liable. The ruling came as part of a case in which the driver of a truck received a text message shortly before striking a motorcycle carrying two passengers. The court ruled that while in this case, the person sending the text wasn't liable, they could be if the circumstances were a little different. '...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"

Comments

Idiocracy

[shiftless]

What if I place a phone call to someone I know, or "have a special reason to know", may be driving?

Idiocracy was supposed to be a comedy, not a how to instruction manual.

Re:Idiocracy

[DarkOx]

What if a radio DJ makes a shocking announcement and he knows or has special reason to know someone may be listing while driving?

This one seems nutty to me; making anyone responsible for the safe operation of a car beyond the one operating it seems kinda foolish.

Re:Idiocracy

[Teresita]

Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[TemporalBeing]

Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.

Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.

Re:Idiocracy

[SJHillman]

The radio station I listen to has kind of sort of begun to acknowledge people listen to morning radio mostly during commute. Instead of "call in at 555-5555 or text to #" it's now "call in at 555-555 or text if you're not moving to #"

The end result is probably nothing more than the DJs feeling like they can sleep a little better at night.

Re:Idiocracy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think that the punchline is " if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."

Merely sending a text message, or making a phone call, or being a talkative passenger, or something, is not a problem. Only doing so with knowledge (how this would be obtained is unclear, and the situation is hypothetical) that the driver will be distracted by your action is seen as problematic.

It's irrelevant; because the hypothetical proposes a fairly stiff standard of evidence to meet (and would only kick in when both that standard is met and a text-reading driver does something unpleasant enough to get the courts involved); but it's actually not dissimilar from reasoning in other contexts:

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not. Few scenarios are as clear cut as 'prior knowledge of atypical and dangerous allergy'; but it's hardly unreasonable to expect that certain people will be specially vulnerable to certain agents, and that people who know that and expose them anyway should be treated as though they intended the consequences that they knew about, rather than the consequences that would have resulted for any random normal person.

Re:Idiocracy

[Joce640k]

Its tricky to know somebody's driving when you send a text.

OTOH if you call somebody who's driving you can hear the car, etc., you can usually tell if they're driving or not. Making it illegal not to hang up if you know somebody is driving would make more sense.

Re:Idiocracy

[SJHillman]

One issue I have with text records is that my phone will keep trying to send the message until it gets signal. So I can type and hit Send while still in a convenience store, but it might not actually send until I'm 30 miles down the road to an area with better reception. I would presume that records would show when it was actually sent, not when it was typed out. Given that most areas of the country have spotty reception due to even small topographic features or because people use Sprint, it's a less unlikely scenario than it might seem.

Re:Idiocracy

[meerling]

Despite the fact that the sender has no real way of knowing if the recipient is operating a vehicle unless they are in the vehicle with them, and on top of that, the text is a non-time sensitive communication like a physical letter. The only reason to read it the moment you get it is because you want to, otherwise you just wait until it's convenient, nobody is in any way forcing you to read it now.

As to the morons in NJ, they said "...know, the recipient will view the text while driving". I guess the statement of "I didn't know he/she was stupid enough to text while driving." suddenly becomes a valid defense.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.

Re:Idiocracy

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.

Apparently you can in Joisey

Re:Idiocracy

[mark-t]

They should probably generalize such prohibition to make it illegal while driving to do *ANYTHING* else which requires the use of either hand, foot, or requires a person to not maintain visual focus on the traffic and road conditions outside of the car for any period longer than perhaps a second or so, unless such activity is part of the normal and safe operation of the vehicle.

I realize that this technically all falls under the prohibition of driving while distracted, but it seems to me like people need something a little more concrete... so why not just explicitly tell them that they aren't allowed to do anything else while driving?

Although I guess that'd also make it illegal to do things like drink coffee while driving, or eat anything... which would make drive-thru's illegal.

Not exactly a huge price to pay, however.... if it meant that people would actually pay more attention to what they were doing while driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[Imagix]

Some allergies are apparently serious enough that putting your sandwich on the counter, and then later Bob touching that area causes a reaction.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dishevel]

What if I place a phone call to someone I know, or "have a special reason to know", may be driving?

Idiocracy was supposed to be a comedy, not a how to instruction manual.

Its not really about how you could have known.

This is about money. If the guy on the other end of the phone has more money than the guy driving he will be included as a target to maximize profit.

Fuck Lawyers.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone is that allergic to something then they should live in a bubble. The entire would should not have to stop because someone has a condition.

Re:Idiocracy

[MarkvW]

Think UPS driver (driving massively large truck), receiving distracting signals from his boss . . . then you might start to get the drift. . . .

Re:Idiocracy

[studpuppy]

It's easy to know if the sender knew. Just ask the NSA. Apparently, they know everything these days....

Re:Idiocracy

[geekoid]

They specifically say the person sending the text should have a reason to know the person was driving.

Yeah, it's stupid but don't bring up reason that don't apply.

Re:Idiocracy

[wisnoskij]

I think you are allowed to phone and drive, and any number of things and drive. It is just intoxicants and texting that are illegal to do while driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[DragonTHC]

It's not like you can control when the message is delivered.

Re:Idiocracy

[geekoid]

No it wouldn't.
Getting food isn't illegal, eating it is. May people take drive through home.
Just like some states have drive through liquor stores.

Re:Idiocracy

[reve_etrange]

It appears that the judge ruled that even if the driver texts you, you might be liable!

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, too fucking bad for Bob, then. He can't seriously expect the whole world to bend over backwards to accommodate him.

This is getting ridiculous with the fucking food allergies. Oh noes, I'm allergic to peanuts. Oh noes, I'm allergic to tree nuts. Oh noes, I'm allergic to shellfish. Oh noes, I'm lactose intollerant. Oh noes, I'm allergic to gluten. Oh noes, I'm allergic to eggs. Well fuck that, my kids school is like a fucking prison with so many restrictions, one of these days they'll probably start feeding the kids cardboard because every tiny little shit is allergic to something.

Re:Idiocracy

[flayzernax]

Its the drivers duty to turn off their phone and ensure they are not distracted while driving. The responsibility falls on the drivers of the vehicles. If they cannot preform this duty. They should not be driving. We don't even need special rules or laws. Just hold people accountable for when they fuck up. Make it clear to everyone what will happen if you are not responsible.

Suddenly people become more responsible.

Also discourteous irresponsible people should get killed early in life.

Re:Idiocracy

[fast turtle]

Then you've just managed to ban driving a Stick Shift of any type in Joisey including all of the Semi's that deliver food/supplies to the various stores. Now everyone can shop in NY or PA and not have to pay any sales tax as the goods are no longer available.

Re:Idiocracy

[David_Hart]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not..

What? Sorry, but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving. This is about the continued abdication of personal responsibility. When you get behind the wheel of a car, anything you do is your responsibility.

Re:Idiocracy

[Luthair]

Most people consider text messaging to be asynchronous communication to be responded to when the receiver is able. The only occasion I can think of where the sender ought to be liable is if they were the driver's employer and required the driver to respond quickly.

Re:Idiocracy

[Luthair]

Agreed. If allergies are that bad then you already need to be on guard at all times as any surface in a public place could contain trace amounts of peanuts which could in turn be transferred to the counters at work.

Re:Idiocracy

[mc6809e]

It's irrelevant; because the hypothetical proposes a fairly stiff standard of evidence to meet (and would only kick in when both that standard is met and a text-reading driver does something unpleasant enough to get the courts involved);

Very logical and therefore probably invalid in a civil case.

This rule was created so that lawyers can go after more people in the the hope they'll find someone with deep pockets. Juries aren't going to let a sympathetic victim go without payment if there is someone that is able to pay.

Re:Idiocracy

[cheekyjohnson]

Some have said the solution is to just ban peanuts and products containing peanuts in certain places altogether. I know some schools have tried this.

Re:Idiocracy

[hypergreatthing]

That's a awful sense of logic.

If i want to bring a peanut butter sandwich to work with full knowledge that Bob from accounting is allergic, the only reasonable action i must take is to make sure that I don't purposely expose Bob my delicious sandwich. If i get into an argument with Bob and be punches me in the face and steals my lunch and proceeds to wolf it down in front of me, i am not responsible for his actions.

There has to be a cut off where personal responsibility takes over.

If someone is driving and decides to ignore the laws and text, phone, do their makeup, drink, jump out the car, light themselves on fire, it is not the responsibility of a third party to ensure they don't do any of those things. I've never heard the defense of "Sorry, i was too distracted by that hot blonde in the other lane" being used to defend their reckless behavior. There are hundreds of distractions when driving. It is up to the driver to focus on the task at hand.

Now if you were driving with a bunch of clowns in a car, and they proceeded to grab the wheel, i can see where a direct cause and effect of getting into an accident could the the responsibility of another person. But last time i checked, texting someone does not require them to immediately check it. Unless of course they have a bomb strapped to their necks that will go off unless they respond, i don't think anyone will ever believe that they were forced to be distracted.

Re:Idiocracy

[squiggleslash]

but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving

Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.

This is about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility does not mean blaming one person for the actions of multiple people, it means each person involved stepping up to the plate and taking responsible for their part. If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.

Re:Idiocracy

[Charliemopps]

no, it's about trial lawyers trying to find more wallets to empty.

Re: Idiocracy

[JaredOfEuropa]

Even so. I should be able to send a text to a driver even if I know for sure he is driving at that time. A text message can be left alone until it is safe to read it, and the responsibility of waiting to read the message until it can be done safely is 100â... the responsibility of the recipient.

Re:Idiocracy

[Culture20]

Same here. But then there's invariably a commercial advertisement that uses honking car horns or an emergency siren. Thanks radio!

Re:Idiocracy

[jedidiah]

> Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

You repeating the nonsense doesn't make it any less moronic.

The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.

It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.

You demean all of us when you try to strip people of moral responsibility for their actions. You turn us into something less than human.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

A critical difference between your scenario and the court proposal is that Bob has no choice in whether or not he is allergic to peanuts. The reader of a text message does have a choice of whether or not to read or respond. In a hypothetical scenario where where the recipient would be penalized for not responding quickly, the recipient has the option of pulling over when being notified that a message is received, so the sender is in no way liable for the recipients actions. There is nothing sensible about this ruling to me.

Re:Idiocracy

[shiftless]

The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

Which is commonsense.

When I clicked on this story, there were no comments yet, but I was saddened because I knew that dumb asses would chime in to post dumb shit like you just did.

No, it's not "commonsense." What you just posted is complete bullshit.

You seem to be working under the assumption that texting while driving is always dangerous. Except it's not. I've done it thousands of times and never once caused a fender bender, let alone a 57 car pileup. That's because I'm safe about how I do it and don't text people while navigating through tricky situations. That is my responsibility to handle, not the person who's texting me. If a text comes in at an inopportune time and I check it, thus causing an accident...it's MY FUCKING FAULT and nobody else's.

People like you talk about personal responsibility like you have a clue what it is. You don't. Your brain is mush from all the government propaganda you've been absorbing.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the Amber Alerts that are pushed out to all phone at the same time? That creates a a situation where every car on the road has now been distracted at the exact same time.

Also, Idiocracy is a documentary from the future. It was sent back as a warning via the real Time Masheen.

Re:Idiocracy

[St.Creed]

I have been wondering for some time now why peanut allergies are virtually unknown in China and were unknown in The Netherlands until say, 15 years ago. Now, it's every third kid that has a pretty dangerous allergy. And it's not a case of overdiagnosing either.

My hypothesis is that while crop growers are very good at hardening the fruits and vegetables against disease and insects, they forget (or rather: ignore) the fact that the reason fruit and vegetables are resistant is because they are using a frightful array of chemical defenses. And those defenses include proteins, most of them not being analyzed since we're talking "harmless and healthy vegetables". I think that if we'd analyze the chemical defenses in the current crops really carefully, we'd probably discover some nasty surprises.

And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

Re:Idiocracy

[wagnerrp]

To be fair, when a lactose intolerant person drinks milk, everyone in the vicinity loses.

Re:Idiocracy

[hairyfeet]

To be fair there is gonna be plenty of times when you are gonna "have a special reason to know" the person you are texting is driving. For example the drummer for my band has a day job which involves driving a long distance to work so i know not to call him for at least 2 hours after his shift ends otherwise he is likely to get my call during his commute so by this ruling if I ignored the fact that I know what hours he works I would be at least partially responsible.

So while the courts have had a LOT of bad rulings lately this one it seems is just applying common sense, if you know the person is on the road between the hours of X and Y and you text them anyway? You are helping to contribute to unsafe conditions, no different than if you were the passenger and kept distracting the driver to show them some LOLCats on your phone.

Re:Idiocracy

[hyperquantization]

It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.

So, if I knowingly incite somebody to commit murder, I'm not to blame, right?

No, that's called Accessory to Murder.

Re:Idiocracy

[wagnerrp]

In other words, they've decided the sender would be liable if a set of circumstances that could never be proven in court were met.

Re:Idiocracy

[anarcobra]

I think the interesting question is what do they expect to do if one of the persons (i.e either the texter or textee) is in a state where texting while driving is accepted? Will I still be fined for sending a text to Bob who I know is driving, but he's in a state where it is legal to text while driving? And what if I send text to Bob who is driving in NJ, but I'm in a state where it is legal? Will they turn it into a federal case based on some perverted interpretation of interstate commerce?

Re:Idiocracy

[CrimsonAvenger]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I've known a couple of people with peanut allergies over the years. NOT ONE of them was stupid enough to look at a peanut butter sandwich and say "that looks delicious! Can I have half?"

So, do you just know some exceptionally stupid people with peanut allergies? Or were you really stretching to (try to) make a point?

Re:Idiocracy

[hawguy]

Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.

Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.

Just because I send someone a text message doesn't mean that I'm forcing them to read it while driving. I'll often text my wife when I know she's driving home because I want to send it to her before *I* start driving. Something like "Hey sweetie, after your aerobics class can you pick up milk at the store?" or "I'm going to the gym after work so I'll be home late, go ahead and eat dinner without me".

I don't need or expect her to read the SMS's while she's driving, so why should I be responsible if she does? I paid for the car that she's driving that's capable of traveling at well over 100mph - if she goes over the speed limit and gets into an accident am I responsible for not speed-limiting the car?

Re:Idiocracy

[Nemesisghost]

one of these days they'll probably start feeding the kids cardboard because every tiny little shit is allergic to something.

Nope, can't do that because cardboard has dyes added to it, which some people are allergic to. Not only that, but depending on the type of tree used for the wood pulp, there might be children allergic to those kinds of trees. And then there are the digestive issues when you try to digest wood products. And will the cardboard provided the FDA's recommended amount of fiber, vitamins, & minerals, while not including any salts, sugars, fats, proteins, or carbohydrates? Finally, heaven forbid that it contain anything from an animal and wasn't plucked out of the ground earlier that morning.

Lord do I hate people that think they know what's best for the rest of us & our children. Let me screw myself & children up in my own way. That's what my parent's did, and I turned out WAY better than the ones raised by the government(ie food stamps, "head start", etc).

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if I knowingly incite somebody to commit murder, I'm not to blame, right?

The problem with this analogy is you have not "incited" the receipient of message to break NJ law. They elected to do it themselves. There is a logical separation between receving a message and playing with your phone while driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[JakartaDean]

It's irrelevant; because the hypothetical proposes a fairly stiff standard of evidence to meet (and would only kick in when both that standard is met and a text-reading driver does something unpleasant enough to get the courts involved)

It's not irrelevant at all. If you are one of the defendants in a suit as a result of a motor vehicle collision, you and the other defendants are all subject to "joint and several" liability. That means that if you are found 1% at fault, and the driver is 99% at fault but dead, you are on the hook for all the damages. This judge knows that, and seems to be an idiot whose version of the law will be not be confirmed by higher courts, but it's a mildly troubling decision.

Re:Idiocracy

[omnichad]

Peanut allergy is not an apt comparison - unless compulsive texting is now a medical condition outside the control of the text recipient.

The driver ALWAYS has a choice. Responsibility ultimately must rest on them.

Re:Idiocracy

[AvitarX]

So, at what point does responsibility for distraction take hold?

Obviously if I do something distracting, like make a loud noise that takes a security guard away from their post, and shit goes down I have responsibility.

I tend to agree that we should be allowed to text people driving or not, and put the responsibility on the drivers, but if someone texted me back and was like, keep it to a minimum, I'm driving in a shaky situation, and I kept a conversation going, clearly I am doing is wrong on some level.

If someone does something stupid, like jumps out into traffic, I should try to avoid them too, even if they are being idiotic.

Re:Idiocracy

[omnichad]

They could just as easily read the text later. It's asynchronous communication.

Re:Idiocracy

[mark-t]

Using your hands to drive a stick shift is part of the normal operation of that type of vehicle, which, if read more carefully what I had actually wrote above, would not be affected.

Re:Idiocracy

[omnichad]

Two words: asynchronous communication.

I don't have to wait to send you a message for you to read later. I can send it now for you to read later.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.

Apparently you can in Joisey

You would be wrong, even in Joisey. It depends on if you have been warned. If Bob has a deadly allergy to peanuts and even the slightest contact is enough to trigger a lethal attack and (this is the important part) the employees in the office have been notified of the problem and that they are not to bring peanut butter onto the premises, you can be held accountable.

While I don't know of any cases involving peanut butter, there are plenty involving perfume and cologne where an employee is allergic to strong smells from these substances and other employees are prohibited from using them at the workplace (or even teachers if a student has the condition). Violation of the prohibition costs one their job. By definition, if you lose your job for bringing the banned substance to work because of an allergy another employee has, you are in fact being held accountable [for your actions].

Whether the other employee, Bob in the AC's post, takes the sandwich or not, does not remove your accountability for your own action. For all Bob knew, he might argue, it was supposed to be an almond butter sandwich, not peanut butter. It doesn't matter, if you didn't bring the banned substance in the first place, Bob would never have had the opportunity to come into contact with it.

Re:Idiocracy

[fuzznutz]

Making it illegal not to hang up if you know somebody is driving would make more sense.

No it wouldn't. You fall into the same logic trap as the Jersey judge thinking that more laws/liability will fix human behavior that we don't like. It's already illegal to text and drive in my state, and every day I see at least 3 drivers on my four mile work commute doing it. Every other driver is talking on the phone at 5:00 during their drive home.

Does anybody seriously think the answer to all life's problems is more laws? Must we always advocate yet another statute on the books every time we see something we don't agree with or don't like? Maybe we need to just grow up and realize we are never going to live in a perfect world where nothing bad happens.

The law and order crowd is turning our world into a police state.

Re:Idiocracy

[David_Hart]

but this is just as nonsensical as the court ruling about knowingly texting someone while they are driving

Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.... If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.

No... it's still utter nonsense. No matter what a texter does, they cannot force you to pick up the phone.

It's like saying that a cute girl is responsible for your bad driving because she is walking down the road in the summer wearing shorts and a bikini top looking hot. Based on the logic above, she would hold some responsibility simply because she knows that guys would be driving down the road looking at her, causing accidents.

No one in their right mind would hold the girl responsible, in whole or in part, for your actions or any accidents caused by your actions. The same applies to people texting you. No one in their right mind would expect you to reply to their texts while driving, even if they knew that you were. They would expect you to find a safe place to pull over. It's your responsibility to drive safely and no one can force you to text back while driving....

Re:Idiocracy

[squiggleslash]

I posted a scenario here which I suspect would be pass a court (remember this is largely about who pays civil damages, so there's a lower standard of proof than would be required for a criminal charge.)

Re:Idiocracy

[gnasher719]

Despite the fact that the sender has no real way of knowing if the recipient is operating a vehicle unless they are in the vehicle with them,

When I leave home in the morning, my wife will know that 20 minutes later chances are higher than 90% that I will be driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[hyperquantization]

Exactly. The point of the ruling (or what I'm reading of it) is to indicate that both parties share responsibility if there's, say, an active conversation on the road.

Re:Idiocracy

[omnichad]

So you can't call and leave a voicemail for later? Can't send a text you expect them to read when they get to a safe place to do so? No, making other people responsible for your own stupidity is not common sense.

Re: Idiocracy

[Immerman]

In most situations I would completely agree with you. But In the particular case of your boss/dispatcher/etc texting you there is quite possibly an employer-created set of perverse incentives, in which case the employer should be liable for willfully creating a hazardous work environment:
Do you pull over to respond? Or does that cut into your performance or compensation metrics?
Do you wait until you would stop anyway for a delivery/service call/whatever? Or does that make you "nonresponsive" and hurt your standing with the boss/dispatcher?

You get the idea. Ideally just the existence of such perverse incentives would be grounds for a lawsuit from either an employe or any member of the endangered public. In reality though nobody is likely to sue over something so apparently minor. Making the employer share responsibility for any accidents though, there's some incentive to not create such incentives.

Re:Idiocracy

[LifesABeach]

lets hope Bob doesn't have a peanut allergy?

Re:Idiocracy

[Immerman]

Depends on locale. Many jurisdictions make it illegal to use a cell phone for any purpose while driving. Others have a bit more nuanced wordings, allowing for example the use of a smartphone-based GPS app.

Re:Idiocracy

[vux984]

Most people consider text messaging to be asynchronous communication to be responded to when the receiver is able.

Says someone who has never seen how people actually obsessively compulsively read texts during dinner, at movies, while driving, or using a toilet.

Not saying you are wrong on it being technically asynchronous, or about where the liability is. I think you are right.

But most people I see out in the world treat texting as 'talking on the phone without dialing'. And with texting systems like BBM where you can see if its delivered, or read... a lot of people get very irate if they see its delivered, read and not immediately responded too, and only slightly less irate if its delivered but not read.

The group that consider texting to be asynchronous and ok to be responded to at leisure is I think the minority.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

I have been wondering for some time now why peanut allergies are virtually unknown in China and were unknown in The Netherlands until say, 15 years ago. Now, it's every third kid that has a pretty dangerous allergy. And it's not a case of overdiagnosing either.

My hypothesis is that while crop growers are very good at hardening the fruits and vegetables against disease and insects, they forget (or rather: ignore) the fact that the reason fruit and vegetables are resistant is because they are using a frightful array of chemical defenses. And those defenses include proteins, most of them not being analyzed since we're talking "harmless and healthy vegetables". I think that if we'd analyze the chemical defenses in the current crops really carefully, we'd probably discover some nasty surprises.

And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

That could be, but more likely it isn't the case. I agree that it isn't overdiagnosing, either, but it is just better diagnosing. People have many allergies, very few lead to anaphylactic shock. I for one am allergic to peanuts and yet I eat them all the time and enjoy peanut butter. There is a difference between having an allergy and having a life threatening allergy. Today, kids get test routinely for allergies. As such, they are now diagnosed as having these allergies, whereas previous you would only get tested if you were having actual allergy problems. Most people are allergic to a myriad of things. If the symptoms are problematic you take allergy pills. If the symptoms are deadly, you avoid the source all together and carry an epi pen just in case.

Probably the reason you don't hear of many peanut allergies in China is that like the US, most people do not have a serious allergy to them but unlike the US, most Chinese people don't get the medical care and testing that occurs in the US to determine if they are even mildly allergic.

Re:Idiocracy

[squiggleslash]

It's like saying that a cute girl is responsible for your bad driving because she is walking down the road in the summer wearing shorts and a bikini top looking hot. Based on the logic above, she would hold some responsibility simply because she knows that guys would be driving down the road looking at her, causing accidents.

No, that's bizarre logic. Short of using a burkha, the woman can't avoid being "cute", and in any case isn't doing so to catch the eye of drivers (mind you: in an extreme case even this could happen, if a "pretty girl" decided to flash her chest at male drivers at a busy intersection, and there was an accident, I'd say it would be pretty likely that, in addition to any indecency charges, the woman would be held partly accountable for the carnage.)

You're making a proactive effort to communicate with a driver in an unsafe way, on the other hand. You're sending them text messages. You know they're driving. You know the recipient is likely to respond, which means you're expecting them to respond.

How. Are. You. Not. Partly. Responsible? Seriously. You're expecting someone to do X if you do Y. You don't have to do Y. You do it anyway, because you want X to happen.

It's not unfair. It's not unreasonable. And if you seriously don't want to be held responsible for an accident that wouldn't have happened if you'd avoided doing something you knew could cause an accident, wouldn't it be reasonable for you to just not do it, rather than bitch about the possibility you might get part of the blame on Slashdot?

Re:Idiocracy

[quantaman]

Despite the fact that the sender has no real way of knowing if the recipient is operating a vehicle unless they are in the vehicle with them, and on top of that, the text is a non-time sensitive communication like a physical letter. The only reason to read it the moment you get it is because you want to, otherwise you just wait until it's convenient, nobody is in any way forcing you to read it now.

As to the morons in NJ, they said "...know, the recipient will view the text while driving". I guess the statement of "I didn't know he/she was stupid enough to text while driving." suddenly becomes a valid defense.

Ok, jerk passenger in the back knows the driver has a habit of checking texts while they're driving. So the passenger waits till they're in a really complicated traffic situation, then, wanting to cause a little mayhem, they send the driver a text knowing they'll read it at that moment. The driver does as intended and an accident ensues.

I think a good claim could be made that the passenger is also liable for the accident.

Re:Idiocracy

[fnj]

When you get behind the wheel of a car, anything you do is your responsibility.

It has nothing to do with being behind the wheel. Anything you do in any setting is your responsibility. "But mommy, everybody is doing it." "Johnny, if your friend jumps off the cliff, does that mean you jump too?"

Re:Idiocracy

[bws111]

It's all so nicely black and white, isn't it?

The driver in this case was a truck driver, he probably worked for a trucking company. Now, suppose his boss had the habit of texting him 'urgent' information, and that continued employment depending on responding to/acting on those texts.

The driver has free will

. Yep, and his 'free will' choice is now 'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'. I'm guess that one of those outcomes is much more likely than the other - so much for his 'free will'.

The driver has moral awareness

Yep, and probably a big part of that awareness is his responsibility to provide for his family

The driver is capable of being in control of the situation

Which situation is he in control of? The employment situation, or the reading a text situation?

Yes, the driver is responsible for his actions, and NOBODY has claimed otherwise. But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position (of having to choose between keeping his job and looking at a text) in the first place? THAT is what the judge is getting at, and you have not provided any valid argument against it.

Re:Idiocracy

[fnj]

They specifically say the person sending the text should have a reason to know the person was driving.

Yeah, it's stupid but don't bring up reason that don't apply.

So the court can bring up any dumbass scenario they want, but I can't?

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

> Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

You repeating the nonsense doesn't make it any less moronic.

The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.

It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.

You demean all of us when you try to strip people of moral responsibility for their actions. You turn us into something less than human.

Everything you say about the driver applies to you, too. If you know that the other person is driving a car then why are you continuing to text them? Yes, you could send them a text that says, when you get home, call (or whatever), but the moment they respond and you respond back, you are now a willing participant in their distraction.

I don't view this a stripping people of moral responsibility, but just the opposite. Just like you shouldn't text and drive, if you know somebody is driving, don't text them, either. It is illegal for a 16 year old to drink, but nobody would argue that offering one a beer doesn't make you liable because the 16 year old has free will and could refuse the beer. Likewise, the court is saying doing something you know is wrong makes you liable.

Re:Idiocracy

[ak3ldama]

The minority in this case are in the right. Hell, my voice mail used to be: "Hi, my phone is probably on silent again. If you leave a voice mail I'll probably get back to you in a few days."

Re:Idiocracy

[X0563511]

No kidding. That's just irresponsible. But nope, can't say "fuck" on the radio because THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:Idiocracy

[matthelm007]

Problem with that, is "I" have an allergy to NOT eating peanuts. And since I'm the most important person "I" know, "I" win.

Re:Idiocracy

[TemporalBeing]

Despite the fact that the sender has no real way of knowing if the recipient is operating a vehicle unless they are in the vehicle with them, and on top of that, the text is a non-time sensitive communication like a physical letter. The only reason to read it the moment you get it is because you want to, otherwise you just wait until it's convenient, nobody is in any way forcing you to read it now. As to the morons in NJ, they said "...know, the recipient will view the text while driving". I guess the statement of "I didn't know he/she was stupid enough to text while driving." suddenly becomes a valid defense.

True. No one is forcing the driver to read it. But that's not the question. The question is at what point does the sender become liable? The judge is saying that if they send texts to someone that they know is driving and that driver reads them (for whatever reason) and an accident happens then they are liable. Sending one text would not likely qualify - it would probably have to be something like a conversation going on over texts where the driver is responding, something sending a lot of texts quickly, or someone having been told "I'm driving" and continuing to text. There's already a large amount of case law that can probably be used to help make the determination that the sender knew about the driving (IANAL, that's just my educated guess).

Re:Idiocracy

[fnj]

I think your perspective may be provincial. There are at least 50 jurisdictions within the US alone which have differing legislation on this general subject.

If you want to get really shook up, consider that there are also 50+ jurisdictions with different legislation on exactly what constitutes actionable manslaughter, just to take a single example.

Re:Idiocracy

[thedonger]

People vastly overreact to the threat of peanuts. My little sister is extremely allergic to peanuts and has been since she was a child. So allergic that a peanut touching her skin raises a welt. She grew up in a house where 6 other people ate peanut butter all the time like it was liquid crack. The real stuff, too - Teddy - not that Jiff or Skippy hydrogenated junk. She went to public school. She lives a normal life, but with an Epipen in her purse. As with damn near everything else a vocal minority have created a huge scare over something that while potentially deadly is easily avoidable.

Re:Idiocracy

[cayenne8]

While I don't know of any cases involving peanut butter, there are plenty involving perfume and cologne where an employee is allergic to strong smells from these substances and other employees are prohibited from using them at the workplace (or even teachers if a student has the condition). Violation of the prohibition costs one their job. By definition, if you lose your job for bringing the banned substance to work because of an allergy another employee has, you are in fact being held accountable [for your actions].

Are you fucking serious?!?!?

Just because one person has some sort of deficiency or problem that limits everyone else in the whole building!?!?!

Why is the onus on all the normal people, and not on the person with the isolated problem???

Geez, why are we always catering to the lowest common denominator for everything these days?

I've never heard of such a thing, and I've worked in govt offices in the past which would likely be the nutjob jobsites that would try to enforce such a thing....

Re:Idiocracy

[nitehawk214]

Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.

Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.

My phone has an autoreply on text messages when it is connected to the bluetooth in my car. Does this mean if the person sends me a second message after the first they are suddenly liable for any stupid thing I do in my car from that point on? Even though it is already illegal (in my home locale) for me to check/send text messages while driving? What the fuck is wrong with this country?

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

Most people consider text messaging to be asynchronous communication to be responded to when the receiver is able. The only occasion I can think of where the sender ought to be liable is if they were the driver's employer and required the driver to respond quickly.

It would depend on the facts. If I text you where are you? And you respond with I'm driving to Philadelphia, then I am aware that you are driving a car. I could text you Call me when you get there. Or I can continue texting you with whatever I wanted to talk about.

It is that latter case the court is talking about. 1) I know you are driving and 2) I continue to engage in a texting conversation. Since texting and driving is illegal in that jurisdiction, I am participating in the crime with you, with full knowledge since I know you are driving and therefore, if an accident ensues, I have contributed to that accident.

The slippery slope in all of this is what if I don't know you are driving. I have still participated in the crime and contributed to the accident. The courts have not looked favorably on get away drivers for a crime who use the defense that they didn't know a crime was going on. How would a jury respond when looking for somebody to blame in a tragic accident caused by texting?

Re:Idiocracy

[TemporalBeing]

Make it illegal to send a text if you know the recipient is driving. Now you gotta prove to a court of law that the sender knew. But it's easy to prove the driver was texting by checking phone records. But no, we don't want to do that, because it would imply making it illegal to text while driving.

Many places have already made it illegal to text while driving. They are just existing the liability to the other party of the conversation when that party has knowingly participated in the illegal texting, at the very least as an accessory to the crime itself.

Just because I send someone a text message doesn't mean that I'm forcing them to read it while driving. I'll often text my wife when I know she's driving home because I want to send it to her before *I* start driving. Something like "Hey sweetie, after your aerobics class can you pick up milk at the store?" or "I'm going to the gym after work so I'll be home late, go ahead and eat dinner without me".

I don't need or expect her to read the SMS's while she's driving, so why should I be responsible if she does? I paid for the car that she's driving that's capable of traveling at well over 100mph - if she goes over the speed limit and gets into an accident am I responsible for not speed-limiting the car?

If she reads it, then yes you do have a culpability to a degree. However, my guess (IANAL) is that a single text would not qualify you; sending numerous ones and trying to carry on a conversation would. Now, IANAL but there is already established case law in other areas that would seem to equally apply here in determining liability/culpability.

Re:Idiocracy

[TemporalBeing]

See my replies to others on this thread.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

That's a awful sense of logic.

If i want to bring a peanut butter sandwich to work with full knowledge that Bob from accounting is allergic, the only reasonable action i must take is to make sure that I don't purposely expose Bob my delicious sandwich. If i get into an argument with Bob and be punches me in the face and steals my lunch and proceeds to wolf it down in front of me, i am not responsible for his actions.

There has to be a cut off where personal responsibility takes over.

If someone is driving and decides to ignore the laws and text, phone, do their makeup, drink, jump out the car, light themselves on fire, it is not the responsibility of a third party to ensure they don't do any of those things. I've never heard the defense of "Sorry, i was too distracted by that hot blonde in the other lane" being used to defend their reckless behavior. There are hundreds of distractions when driving. It is up to the driver to focus on the task at hand..

There have been cases and people successfully prosecuted for taking off their blouses (women of course) while going down the freeway and that act distracting drivers and causing an accident. A key part of such prosecutions is that the defendant, the woman who took off their blouse, knew or should have know it would have been a distraction on the freeway.

How is that different from what the court is saying here: If you know that somebody is driving and you continue to engage them in text messaging while they are driving, you can be held liable?

Re:Idiocracy

[robinsonne]

This is completely normal these days actually. There used to be a woman that was (supposedly) allergic to various scents in the building where I work. We all got sent an email telling us to refrain from any fragrances, perfumes, colognes, or deodorant that would aggravate her condition.

After she left, the women in the building threw a party because they could wear perfume again...so yeah, it happens.

Re:Idiocracy

[B1oodAnge1]

When I leave home in the morning, my wife will know that 20 minutes later chances are higher than 90% that I will be driving.

...and she can reasonably expect that you will pull over briefly to read and respond to a text that she sends you, assuming you can't just wait till you arrive at your destination.

Re:Idiocracy

[NotSanguine]

Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.

This is about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility does not mean blaming one person for the actions of multiple people, it means each person involved stepping up to the plate and taking responsible for their part. If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.

I am responsible for the things that *I* do. If others are irresponsible with the results of what I do, you're saying that I'm somehow responsible for their actions. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

Assuming that the other person isn't mentally challenged or has some sort of mental illness that makes it possible for me to manipulate them, they have to be responsible for their own actions regardless of what I do. Whether that's driving safely or not pilfering the brownies with nuts that I asked them to give to their wife, it's not my fault if someone *chooses* to read my text messages or emails or tweets while driving. I'm not forcing them to look at their phone while they should be watching the road.

Holding a texter responsible for the irresponsible acts of a driver is like arresting the truck driver that delivered the E-Coli tainted beef to the supermarket. That assumes of course, that the driver didn't roll around in the beef before he delivered it. If someone texts or emails me when I'm driving, they have to wait until I can safely look at their message.

This is just expanding the pool of people who can be sued for traffic accidents. Has anyone looked into the background of the judge who made this ruling?

Geez Louise!

Re:Idiocracy

[Nemesisghost]

The driver is a legal adult.

I agree with everything else you said, except that. The drivers who seem to have the biggest problem(including the one in TFA) are teenagers, who are not legal adults. Instead they are wannabe adults.

Re:Idiocracy

[EMG at MU]

But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos (sic) of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position (of having to choose between keeping his job and looking at a text) in the first place? THAT is what the judge is getting at, and you have not provided any valid argument against it.

You're begging the question of the drivers job being on the line based on a binary decision: read the text and break the law, or ignore the text and lose job.

Why couldn't the driver just pull over for a few min to correspond with his boss? How do you know that the boss didn't assume that is what the driver would do because it is illegal to text and drive. How do you know there isn't a text to speech device that reads out texts as the driver gets them (actually pretty common in commercial trucks).

If the boss forced the driver to read the text while actively driving, I can see how that should be criminal. But the means of force need to be more serious than the driver didn't want to pull over for a few min to read his phone. If the boss sends a text and the driver decides to read it instead of pulling over, the boss has no control over that and should not be implicated.

Re:Idiocracy

[kasperd]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

Did you get that scenario from The Night Caller?

Re:Idiocracy

[DarkOx]

But what possible reason is there of stripping the bos of HIS moral responsibility for putting the driver in that position

Because when you try and make everyone responsible for everything the outcome is nobody is responsible for anything. The next level out is someone is going to suggest the telco can reasonably know if a phone is in a moving vehicle; so how come they failed to hold the messages until the phone was not observed to be traveling at rate a speed beyond a running human?

In your case I could argue the Boss has special reason to if not know at least think the trucker is going to be driving, after all its what he is paying the guy to do all day. So should he not be able to text his driver or should we keep it simple and say its really the drivers responsibility to wait for a safe time to read and reply to messages? He could do this before departing a fuel stop for example.

At somepoint you just have to say, he wait the trucker is they guy behind at the controls of 18 tons of steel, he needs to be doing everything in his power to make that safe. Ultimately its his choice and his alone to read that text message or not.

If his boss is insisting he does something illegal that endangers his safety in the work place (his truck); I am sure OSAH or someone at the DOL would love to hear about it. We have all this government for some reason right? Maybe he should use it?

Re: Idiocracy

[B1oodAnge1]

by that same argument you would have to ban all time based performance metrics for any commercial drivers, since they would encourage speeding. At some point you have to let the driver be responsible for complying with the law.

Re:Idiocracy

[Artifakt]

"Driver alledges his dispatcher told him to answer the phone even while driving and he did so, claiming this led to the accident. Company has written records of disciplining some driver employees for not immediately answering phone calls, and ex-employees are available to testify that this was cited by their management in termination. Preliminary investigation showed dispatcher and management did not know the laws of the state where the acccident occurred re. cell phone use. Dispatcher and other management had signed statements on record with their insuror stating they educated their drivers in all applicable state and local laws as part of regular training, and in fact were given a discount on insurance prices for their internal safety program."
            That's not a hypothetical - that's settled case law. That's two independent lines of proof, either of which would probably have resulted in the same court decision by itself. The company in question paid millions for both the settlement and in fines by the time the whole matter was over.

Re:Idiocracy

[Kwyj1b0]

Your analogy is slightly off. Let's say you work at a large company (say Microsoft). And you know Bob has an allergy. Now, your wife makes a delicious peanut butter sandwich. She knows Bob is allergic and tells you: "Honey, I made this peanut butter sandwich for you. I'm leaving it at the kitchen counter. You can take it to work if you'd like".

Now, if you do take the peanut butter sandwich to work and it kills Bob, is she partially responsible (in the legal sense)? I'd say no - you knew full well what you were taking to work, you could have chosen not to take it, and you still did. Unless you have a medical condition/addiction that makes your wife know that you had no choice but to take the sandwich to work, she isn't responsible. And AFAIK, there is no obsessive compulsion to check text messages - if such a disease exists, those people shouldn't drive, period.

I guess what I'm asking is this: who gets credit for killing Microsoft's Bob?

Re:Idiocracy

[St.Creed]

Locally, the use of antibacterial soap is not prevalent outside hospital settings. And use in other products is regulated. So I don't see that as an easy explanation but I agree it's probably unhealthy by itself, with or without the allergies.

Re:Idiocracy

[vux984]

The minority in this case are in the right.

Being "right" isn't the issu.

If most people OCD read/reply the minute they hear it beep the fact that's its technically async is sort of beside the point.

It IS technically async, but most people don't seem to treat it like that. I've seen lots of people prioritize texting over a call they are actually in the middle of.

SMS for a LOT of people is the human equivalent of a non-maskable hardware interrupt.

Re:Idiocracy

[chrismcb]

The driver has free will

. Yep, and his 'free will' choice is now 'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'. I'm guess that one of those outcomes is much more likely than the other - so much for his 'free will'.

Or, I don't know, maybe we can pull over, stop the vehicle, and check the text message.
Or better yet, if the boss has "urgent" info that has to be answered right this second, or the guy loses his job. Perhaps the boss can CALL the person, rather than just text him and hope that the text gets to him. Cause you know, just because the text is sent, doesn't mean the driver gets it, and will get it right that second.

Re:Idiocracy

[chrismcb]

You're making a proactive effort to communicate with a driver in an unsafe way, on the other hand. You're sending them text messages. You know they're driving. You know the recipient is likely to respond, which means you're expecting them to respond.

"Hey Bob are you coming to the party?"
"Yep, on my way, driving down the freeway."
"Ok great. When you get here, go through the back door."
Now I expect bob to not answer my text or read it until he can safely do so. I've sent him a message I expect him to read when he arrives, or stops. But somehow I am responsible?

Re:Idiocracy

[bws111]

Truckers get paid by the mile. Pulling over for a few minutes to correspond with the boss amount to unpaid work time. As for the text-to-speech thing, wtf? If text-to-speech actually makes it any safer (and there is some evidence it does not) then there would not have been an accident in the first place, and we would not be in court trying to figure out who is responsible.

Look, the law is not concerned with 'what ifs' and 'possibilities', it is concerned with what actually happened and what a 'reasonable man' would make of that. Would a 'reasonable man' think that when a truckers boss sends him a text, the boss actually thinks the trucker is going to lose money by pulling over to read it? Maybe if the company had a policy of paying extra miles every time they sent a text. Otherwise no, a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the boss knows damn well the driver is going to read it while driving, even if that is not what they intend them to do. And knowing a probably outcome, and doing it anyway is called negligence.

Re:Idiocracy

[dyingtolive]

It is illegal for a 16 year old to drink, but nobody would argue that offering one a beer doesn't make you liable because the 16 year old has free will and could refuse the beer. Likewise, the court is saying doing something you know is wrong makes you liable.

I dislike this example. How about this:

It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable.

It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario, and it shows how this DOES in fact, strip the actual person responsible of their moral responsibility. If only we could just bubble wrap every surface so thickly that no one ever gets hurt, ever.

Re:Idiocracy

[Synerg1y]

but... think of the children!

But ya, two things going against this one:

1. It's New Jersey
2. The standard for becoming a judge seems to be somewhere in the mariana trench

Re:Idiocracy

[thesupraman]

So, when I know someone is driving and I sent them a text instead of calling them, as that way they can read it later and not be distracted, then I should be help partially responsible if they are stupid enough to *not* *wait*?

That is completely stupid. The whole point of text messages, like email, is they do NOT require or demand immediate attention from the recipient. If someone decides to read them immediately then that is not my responsibility.

If I am stupid enough to be holding a txt 'conversation' with someone while they are driving, that is different, however that was not what was claimed, it was knowing them were driving and could read it - I am not responsible for their actions in this case.

Another example of the incompetence of the nanny state.

Re:Idiocracy

[CanHasDIY]

My wife suffers from Celiac Disease; essentially, she's highly allergic to all forms of gluten, be it from wheat, barley, malt, what-have-you. Not deathly allergic, but pretty damn close. Say what you want, but until you've spent 2-3 days shitting and vomiting almost non-stop from something as simple as accidentally ingesting a small amount of bread or taking a sip of a malt, you have no idea what she deals with and should subsequently shut your fucking mouth.

Anyway, we understand that her condition is our problem, not anyone else's, and thus she pretty much keeps it to herself as she's not a completely narcissistic bitch. I.e., "people like you."

P.S. "Rights," whether real or perceived, have nothing to do with it - nobody is responsible for your health or safety but yourself.

Re:Idiocracy

[CanHasDIY]

Some allergies are apparently serious enough that putting your sandwich on the counter, and then later Bob touching that area causes a reaction.

Well, then, if I was Bob I'd be pretty damn careful about touching communal food preparation surfaces, now wouldn't I?

Why should that be anyone's problem but Bob's?

Re:Idiocracy

[phorm]

In other words, if somebody tells you he/she is driving, and you continue to text, then you may be liable.

Re:Idiocracy

[jxander]

The end result is probably nothing more than the DJs' lawyers feeling like they can sleep a little better at night.

Fixed

Re:Idiocracy

[jxander]

It only becomes a problem if you have a special reason to know that Bob is likely to steal your sandwich. If my PB Sandwich, stored under 2 layers (sandwich bag + Lunch box) simply being in the same communal fridge at work is enough to trip Bob's lethal allergies... then Bob needs to know better than to keep his food in that fridge.

Re:Idiocracy

[CanHasDIY]

Everything you do is your responsibility.

FTFY.

Re:Idiocracy

[tlhIngan]

"Hey Bob are you coming to the party?"
  "Yep, on my way, driving down the freeway."
  "Ok great. When you get here, go through the back door."
  Now I expect bob to not answer my text or read it until he can safely do so. I've sent him a message I expect him to read when he arrives, or stops. But somehow I am responsible?

Only if Bob replies back and you continue the conversation.

As it is, you won't be liable. But if the following happens...

"Did you manage to get Alice and Chuck to come as well?"
You're fine here, Bob asked you a question. HOWEVER, if you reply at all, you know he's going to read your text (since he's already read your other texts while driving), and that he's driving, so you're going to be liable if you hit reply.

Leave the question hanging until Bob drives up and enters, and you're fine. You can probably get away with "Talk when you arrive" as it shows you're trying to not continue the conversation at all.

Re:Idiocracy

[bitt3n]

Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

Sure it is, assuming that the only way Bob can succumb to his allergy is by knowingly eating a sandwich clearly identified as peanut butter. In that case, one is no more responsible for his death than if he stabbed himself in the eye with a pair of chopsticks he pilfered from your bento box.

If Bob might succumb merely by shaking your hand after you wiped your greasy, slavering gob with it, that's another story. In the former case, Bob's fate depends on his own free will, as is the case when someone chooses to read a text message while driving.

Re: Idiocracy

[JaredOfEuropa]

No. Texting is in fact a great tool for a delivery service: the dispatcher sends a message whenever convenient, and the delivery guy reads it whenever it is safe; much better than calling. In your example, if there is an explicit directive to read texts as they come in instead of parking safely first, or an implicit rule to respond to a incoming text as soon as possible, even while driving, then the employer is clearly at fault. For wilfully creating an unsafe work environment, but not for the simple act of sending a text message to an employee while driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[Em Adespoton]

I think that the punchline is " if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."

Merely sending a text message, or making a phone call, or being a talkative passenger, or something, is not a problem. Only doing so with knowledge (how this would be obtained is unclear, and the situation is hypothetical) that the driver will be distracted by your action is seen as problematic.

Driver: LULZ m drvn 2 jps rt nw
Friend: LOL u knw jps lft 5 min; txt nw r 2 lte
Driver: WTF??? (crash)

Seems to me many texters love to broadcast what they're currently doing, including driving. This would pertain more to younger drivers of course, who are already at higher risk of accident while driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[metrix007]

It's bullshit. If I know for a fact that you're driving, if I'm in the passenger seat in the car next to you and text you, you shouldn't fucking check it.

Text's are like emails...once recevied, they can be viewed at any later time. There is nothing that says they need to be checked IMMEDIATELY.

The responsibility is solely on the driver not to check text messages. I, as the sender should be able to send a text and know the person will be responsible and not check it until after they have stopped.

Re:Idiocracy

[Em Adespoton]

Bringing a delicious peanut butter sandwich to work for lunch is totally innocuous. Doing so with the full knowledge that Bob from Accounting is lethally allergic is...not.

I can't be held accountable if Bob steals my lunch, then eats it.

You can in some jurisdictions. Just like you can be sued for negligence if a burglar breaks his ankle falling through your stairs while attempting to break into your house.

Re:Idiocracy

[ubrgeek]

> or wear a particular fragrance to work outweighs the rights of others to come to work without fear of developing an illness, or work.

And because asthma is covered by the ADA.

Re:Idiocracy

[Nyder]

I do not agree.

It's the drivers choice to look at his phone or not. The drivers choice. Not the texters.

If i am driving and I get a text on my cell phone. I have 2 choices.

1. I ignore it till I'm either at a red light, or somewhere pulled over safe.
2. I answer it and risk putting me & someone else in an accident, hospital, or morgue.

Those are my 2 choices. I am responsible for those choices, no one else.

Re:Idiocracy

[Em Adespoton]

If someone is that allergic to something then they should live in a bubble. The entire would should not have to stop because someone has a condition.

People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.

As you say, the entire world should not have to stop (for anyone) because someone has a condition. Just eliminate the allergen from the environment and carry on.

Now this becomes more complex when, say, you have vegan people sharing space with someone who has "nut and legume allergies" -- these two groups basically can't/won't touch or eat each other's food. Should the vegan have to start eating meat? Should the allergic person go bubble themselves away? Are only non-allergic meat-eating "normal" people allowed freedom of movement?

Re:Idiocracy

[CyprusBlue113]

Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

Objection: A good many people absolutely can die within minutes from just touching what amounts to peanut dust. I work with someone like that and I've seen it personally.

Re:Idiocracy

[Maxo-Texas]

Google "child die peanut butter".

Yes, they do-- despite the use of epi-pens.

The first page is all dominated by the one girl but as you go back in the history other child fatalities start mixing in.

Re:Idiocracy

[Maxo-Texas]

I don't know about that but a girl on a swing in a bikini beside the road lasted about 40 minutes and one accident before the business decided to pull her in my area back in the 90's.

I don't think you could do much about someone walking down the road without a business purpose tho.

Heck, all kinds of things could distract us- a noteworthy dog like a saint bernard or irish wolf hound could do it.

Re:Idiocracy

[Luckyo]

It doesn't. However reasonable compromise, such as not using perfume within offices of a worker who is strongly allergic to it is perfectly reasonable. Essentially as long as these things are luxury goods (i.e. perfumes) or select easily avoidable foods (i.e. peanuts) most people should feel compelled to assist the person by not bringing these to workplace.

You can eat nuts and use perfume on your free time after all, while the person cannot avoid you at work.

I'm rather surprised that someone would seriously consider that it's okay to threaten someone's life because they want wear a strong perfume or similar lifestyle luxury choice. I'm not allergic to anything, and I would find it to be my duty as a decent human being to take colleagues with dangerous allergies into account when making decisions about things like deodorant or food I bring to workplace.

Re:Idiocracy

[Em Adespoton]

I have been wondering for some time now why peanut allergies are virtually unknown in China and were unknown in The Netherlands until say, 15 years ago. Now, it's every third kid that has a pretty dangerous allergy. And it's not a case of overdiagnosing either.

My hypothesis is that while crop growers are very good at hardening the fruits and vegetables against disease and insects, they forget (or rather: ignore) the fact that the reason fruit and vegetables are resistant is because they are using a frightful array of chemical defenses. And those defenses include proteins, most of them not being analyzed since we're talking "harmless and healthy vegetables". I think that if we'd analyze the chemical defenses in the current crops really carefully, we'd probably discover some nasty surprises.

And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

A common current hypothesis for the increase in peanut allergies (and other immune and auto-immune disorders) in recent decades is the hygiene hypothesis. This kind of makes sense -- as the bacterial exposure level among infants in China (at least) decreases, there's a larger population that can have an improperly regulated immune system.

However, I think your idea plays a part too (and not just with proteins), as I know a number of people who had no allergies who suddenly became reactive to various foods/chemicals later on in life; it almost seems like there are new catalysts entering the products we expose ourselves to that weren't there 20 years ago.

Re:Idiocracy

[farble1670]

do you have special reason to know that they don't own a hands-free device, or do you have special reason to know that their hands free device needs to be charded?

Re:Idiocracy

[tompaulco]

Wait, I have a common sense suggestion that would be extremely easy to implement and enforce. If the DRIVER of the car drives while distracted for any reason, hold the DRIVER responsible for the results of his/her actions. That way we don't have to have everybody else on the planet try to guess whether that person is driving or not.

Re:Idiocracy

[denbesten]

At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

Natalie Giorgi's experience caused me to reconsider this position. When you consider the risk caused by both cross-contamination and by unlabeled products, "sure as hell expect" quickly becomes a life-risk. The "Peanut Butter table" seems like a very small price for my child to pay to help protect the life of a classmate. I have used this as an excellent example for teaching my child human compassion and how they can look out for others.

For what it's worth, CDC data supports your observation that allergies are on the rise.

Re:Idiocracy

[farble1670]

Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.

this is nothing but lawyer food. perp doesn't have deep enough pockets? let's look through their text log to see if anyone rich was texting them. book some more hours researching whether people had "special reason to believe" the perp was driving. call some witnesses. tie up the courts (more),

we simply don't need this ruling because if everyone simply obeys the *existing* law / ruling, then the problem is prevented. i don't read texts when i'm driving, and you don't read texts when you are driving. it doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Re:Idiocracy

[farble1670]

Yep, and his 'free will' choice is now 'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'. I'm guess that one of those outcomes is much more likely than the other - so much for his 'free will'.

... or pull over?

Re: Idiocracy

[MarkvW]

Domino's Pizza was killing people with their 30 minute pizza guarantees. The lawsuits eventually got them to stop.

The Company needs to be responsible for "Performance metrics" that encourage dangerous behavior.

It's not like the pizza driver is going to be able to pay for the harm that the reckless or negligent driving causes. The Company shouldn't be able to insulate itself by paying "independent contractors" to drive recklessly.

Re:Idiocracy

[farble1670]

unfortunately, laws aren't written to such specific situations. pointing out an obvious corporation-pushing-around-the-worker example doesn't make the vast majority of murky examples any clearer. how about this? i text you at 5.30pm, and you read it and get in an accident. i know you typically commute at this time and are probably driving. am i at fault?

IANAL, but if the truck driver is being coerced to act illegally, they ought to address that coercion before it causes them to plow into that minivan full of kids on their way to soccer practice. i don't know the law, but i'm pretty sure your employer cannot expect you to perform illegal activities to maintain your job. all things being equal, it's better to address it at this point then after the damage is done, and lo and behold, we don't need any new laws or rulings to solve the problem.

Re:Idiocracy

[Ralph Wiggam]

In what jurisdiction is it illegal to use a cell phone while driving? Many states forbid you from *holding* a phone while driving. But that has no bearing on the grandparent post. The caller would assume that the recipient is following the law and using a hands free system to answer their call.

Re:Idiocracy

[slew]

IANAL, but I think many are confusing what is criminal, what is liable, vs a contract.

It may be simply illegal to text whilst driving in many locations (a crime, although usually an infraction or misdemeanor).

You may be liable for damages because of your action of texting (often a tort)

You might get fired for texting on the job (probably an implied or perhaps unwritten contract you have with your employer which may or may not have any basis in the law).

And it could be all three. However, the peanut butter sandwich or perfume situation seems at best a tort or a implied contract which probably has no criminal component.

However, sometimes a tort can reach a level of criminal liablity (usually due to a criminal levels of negligence or perhaps specific intent).

The reason that this texting ruling is significant is that it seems to increase the level responsiblity of the text-er to avoid creating a level of criminal negligence.

As another car analogy, perhaps this is like handing the keys to a car to someone that you know is drunk. Do you have a legal duty to not hand the person the keys if you know the person is drunk? Do you have the duty to make that assessment in every circumstance? Are some more equal than others? What if some automation or service is performing the action? Is the service not somehow criminally liable?

Re:Idiocracy

[sixsixtysix]

easy, just come up with equally ridiculous needs. the sight of suits/ties makes me psychotic, for example.

Re:Idiocracy

[MightyMartian]

Fuck! Now I'll never get rid of Bob in Accounting!

Re:Idiocracy

[sixsixtysix]

Where do you draw the line? Perhaps there should be a vote?

Re:Idiocracy

[gnasher719]

...and she can reasonably expect that you will pull over briefly to read and respond to a text that she sends you, assuming you can't just wait till you arrive at your destination.

She can, because she knows me. On the other hand, I've seen two people carrying a heavy fridge (helping someone who was moving), one guy's phone rang, and he just let go, dropping the fridge on the ground to take the phone out of his pocket. Some people are stupid.

If I was one of those stupid people, and you knew that, and you texted my while you know I'm driving, you'd be partially responsible for what hapens.

Re:Idiocracy

[ATMAvatar]

If Bob has a deadly allergy to peanuts and even the slightest contact is enough to trigger a lethal attack and (this is the important part) the employees in the office have been notified of the problem and that they are not to bring peanut butter onto the premises, you can be held accountable.

Why can't Bob telecommute?

Re:Idiocracy

[ATMAvatar]

People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.

A better analogy would be a case where everyone but you was a carrier of a disease and you were the only person in the area who could suffer severe adverse affects from it... like if your immune system was destroyed.

You may note that in that case, you would be put in a bubble.

Re:Idiocracy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"I'm rather surprised that someone would seriously consider that it's okay to threaten someone's life because they want wear a strong perfume or similar lifestyle luxury choice. I'm not allergic to anything, and I would find it to be my duty as a decent human being to take colleagues with dangerous allergies into account when making decisions about things like deodorant or food I bring to workplace."

A useful, if disheartening, heuristic for evaluating behavior is that a surprising number of people act as though they are playing an RPG all the time: They are the Player Character, around which the universe itself revolves, a few people they care about may get to be party members or quest NPCs, and everybody else is just a kobold repeating a few stock phrases until it's their turn to be killed and looted.

Re:Idiocracy

[DavidGMan]

Back before going entirely audiobooks/podcasts, there was an auto insurance radio ad I heard that featured the sound of a near-collision (honking, swerving, or similar) which I'd imagine someone's blamed a crash on. Too bad they were probably never co-defendants in a suit, as they sure deserved it!

Re:Idiocracy

[rtb61]

A bird flies at the windscreen of a car, the driver is distracted, is it the driver's fault? A large known venomous spider, falls from the sun visor into the drivers lap, the driver is distracted, is it the drivers fault? A large active bill board distracts the driver, is it the drivers fault (now no bullshit about billboards, if they don't distract drivers then why the fuck put them up?). A reflection of sun off a window shines right in the drivers face, the driver is distracted, is it the driver's fault.

Face it, drivers get distracted all of the time, most of the time everyone gets away with it, some of the time they don't and everyone involved suffers, some of the time some of the suffer a lot and for a long time there after. Driving is seriously dangerous crap and you are out there playing Russian roulette (just check out Russian dash cams). http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=russian+dash+cams&page=&utm_source=opensearch

Seriously the way we currently do it is really a bad idea and the more cars on the road the worse it gets, only have to look at road death and accident statistics to know that. Likely automated cars will be the quickest and safest way out of it, so we better pull our fingers out and get on with it, seriously, 1.2 million deaths per year and thousands of more injuries, your number will come up and there ain't much you can do about it!

Re:Idiocracy

[Obfuscant]

The "lowest common denominator" is the vocal minority who feel their "right" to bring a peanut butter sandwich or wear a particular fragrance to work outweighs the rights of others to come to work without fear of developing an illness,

Hate to point this out, but if you've got a serious peanut allergy, you've already got an illness. Ditto if you die when you run across a whiff of perfume.

I suppose you'd have no problem with demanding that all your normal employees go through a sterile scrubdown and take broad spectrum antibiotics so you could employ someone with a failed immune system, too. Better to try to modify the general environment for everyone than to keep those who need special environments to stay alive in their own.

Re:Idiocracy

[wiredlogic]

China is now the worlds largest producer of peanuts. The rest of the world didn't start heavily importing food from China until the early 90's. It stands to reason that the locals are likely to have immunity from constant exposure to their endemic varieties of mold than other populations are.

Re:Idiocracy

[Obfuscant]

I dislike this example. How about this: It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable. It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario,

Except it isn't. The original scenario is based on texting someone who you know will read the message while driving. Therefore, your analogy is broken because the "intent of him drinking them later" really is "knowing that he'll pop one open as soon as the key is in the ignition.".

Re:Idiocracy

[Bremic]

With a wife who is allergic to strawberries, she has learned that she can't trust anything at work. People put strawberries on plates of everything, and some people think it is enough to just take them off. But the juice from them will get into the plate, then seep into the other food, and she ends up being violently ill to the point where she needs to go to hospital. It would be better if people left them on the plate because then she would know what was most likely safe; but people know she is allergic and therefore take them off. It doesn't matter how much she tells them, they always think they are doing the right thing.

She has no defense against this, and she has been told that people are "just trying to help".

The SMS / phone thing is similar. I know I can SMS my wife when she is driving because her phone is in her bag, on the back seat, on silent. Why? Because it removes any temptation to answer the phone. If she had a history of responding to SMSs while driving and I constantly SMS'ed her, then I would consider my behavior to be empowerment, and that is something I shouldn't do.

Re:Idiocracy

[AK Marc]

Merely sending a text message, or making a phone call, or being a talkative passenger, or something, is not a problem. Only doing so with knowledge (how this would be obtained is unclear, and the situation is hypothetical) that the driver will be distracted by your action is seen as problematic.

"What are you doing?"

"Driving home, why?"

"Grab milk on your way home."

It's easy to find examples of people deliberately sending messages to people that are driving.

Re:Idiocracy

[NFN_NLN]

What if a radio DJ makes a shocking announcement and he knows or has special reason to know someone may be listing while driving?

Trust me, I agree with the previous comments. You can't regulate this because it is ultimately the driver's responsibility.

HOWEVER, it does annoy me to no end when radio ads use sirens to get your attention. Radio has a huge following for people driving... drivers are suppose to be aware of emergency vehicles... the radio should not be using FALSE ALARMS in this manner.

It desensitizes drivers... oh that... I thought it was the radio again. Now that should be regulated!

Re:Idiocracy

[hairyfeet]

And if the phone isn't set to vibrate the noise could cause him to have a wreck, I know I've nearly jumped a foot when I was in the middle of some complex lane changing furball traffic and had my phone just suddenly go off.

Re:Idiocracy

[AK Marc]

Or, I don't know, maybe we can pull over, stop the vehicle, and check the text message.

Hahaha. That was intended to be a joke, right? "Pulling over" (assuming a typical Interstate situation) is less safe than not. That, and checking it enough to know who it's from is usually done to see if it warrants pulling over, and at that point, reading it isn't that much of a deal.

Perhaps the boss can CALL the person, rather than just text him and hope that the text gets to him.

Because calling is "safer" than texting.

Re:Idiocracy

[femtobyte]

If his boss is insisting he does something illegal that endangers his safety in the work place (his truck); I am sure OSAH or someone at the DOL would love to hear about it.

But what if his boss is doing something technically legal, but endangering, like sending text messages requiring time to respond, and simultaneously making each driver's employment depend on cutting stopped time to the minimum possible? Result: the driver has to do something dangerous or illegal to keep his job (respond to texts on-the-go instead of pulling over), because his employer is an asshat who will cut every corner and use every legal loophole possible to screw over employees for profit maximization. The ideal solution to this type of problem involves guillotines for the entire owner/management class... but, so long as asshat employers are allowed to be in charge of the world (who will exploit every loophole given them against their employees), ridiculously picky regulations (like specifically banning texting to driving employees) are necessary for safety to counter every creative abuse the employers dream up. Just saying "forget regulations; be a fucking decent person and don't screw over your employee's basic safety" never works, because too many owner/managers aren't fucking decent people.

Re:Idiocracy

[Cosgrach]

Fuck the children.

Re:Idiocracy

[Cosgrach]

Amen to that!

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And I agree that it sounds as if US schools are overreacting horribly. Noone will choke to death from touching a peanut butter sandwhich. They won't like it (blisters will likely occur), but that will just teach 'em not to touch places where peanut butter sandwiches have been. But don't blame the kids with allergies for the way your school "handles" this problem. Although this does depend on the age of the kids. At age 3-, you can't expect the kids to take care of this issue themselves. At age 10, I sure as hell expect kids to watch out what they put in their mouth.

You're an ignorant and dangerous fool. Many children have in fact died or almost died from being in the same room as a peanut butter sandwich. The peanut oil is arromatic. And your understanding of 10 year olds is even worse. Do you have children? I doubt it. A child about that age was in the news in Australia a few years ago because he died due to a reaction to peanut butter. Instead of getting help he was embarassed and went to the toilet where he collapsed and help was too late coming. At 10 children are dumb enough to walk in front of cars to chase a ball. And we only make it worse by mollycoddling them with school zones and the like instead of teaching them the dangers. But remember we're not talking about a broken arm or bruise in either case - it's literally life or death.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dahamma]

Except that's a bad analogy. Your analogy would only make sense if the texter knowingly incited the driver to intentionally crash the car, not *accidentally* crash it while texting.

A better one would be if you convinced someone to buy a sharp kitchen knife and they subsequently cut a finger off while cooking. If you knew they were a klutz, does that make you to blame for the injury?

Re:Idiocracy

[Dahamma]

The driver in this case was not a professional "truck driver", he was a teenager driving a pickup truck. RTFA next time before going off on wild tangents ;)

But in any case, in your example it's not specifically sending a text that would make the employer liable, it's a policy of requiring that drivers read texts/calls as a part of their job. Trying to force an employee to do an illegal act is illegal, obviously. He could just as well required drivers to run red lights, the texting part of it is mostly irrelevant.

Re:Idiocracy

[dyingtolive]

Even if I thought he might crack one open, am I to blame?

If so, then with Obfuscant as my witness, I hereby categorically assume everyone I will ever text will be responsible enough to wait until they are no longer driving to check any messages I send them. Problem solved?

Re:Idiocracy

[AK Marc]

No... it's still utter nonsense. No matter what a texter does, they cannot force you to pick up the phone.

By your absolutism, someone holding a gun to your head isn't "forcing"you to do anything. They are asking. You choose to comply or not. It is 100% your choice.

Re:Idiocracy

[omnichad]

That's why my phone's always on vibrate. That and I'll definitely forget at the movie theater.

Re:Idiocracy

[russotto]

I am responsible for the things that *I* do. If others are irresponsible with the results of what I do, you're saying that I'm somehow responsible for their actions. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.

You're referring to the legal concept of "novus actus interveniens", breaking the chain of responsibility. The person answering the text has committed an intervening act (namely, answering the text) which relieves you of responsibility. This is obviously a dead letter nowadays, where the point is to find someone, anyone, to blame.

Re:Idiocracy

[pla]

Problem with that, is "I" have an allergy to NOT eating peanuts. And since I'm the most important person "I" know, "I" win.

+5 ironically insightful.

I do count as the most important person I know. My SO comes close, along with my parents, and then various other friends and family member.

But when you expect me to not eat a food I particularly like because you have a problem with it - You haven't just taken away my right to eat Allergen-X, but that of the entire world you normally encounter. Sorry, but just plain fucking no.

How many people's right to eat Reese's trumps your right to go out in public? 1? 10? 100? 7 billion? It really does come down to that, put bluntly. Don't like it? Visit me. One of us will survive the encounter, and I promise I'll never lay a finger on you.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

While I don't know of any cases involving peanut butter, there are plenty involving perfume and cologne where an employee is allergic to strong smells from these substances and other employees are prohibited from using them at the workplace (or even teachers if a student has the condition). Violation of the prohibition costs one their job. By definition, if you lose your job for bringing the banned substance to work because of an allergy another employee has, you are in fact being held accountable [for your actions].

Are you fucking serious?!?!?

Just because one person has some sort of deficiency or problem that limits everyone else in the whole building!?!?!

Why is the onus on all the normal people, and not on the person with the isolated problem???

Geez, why are we always catering to the lowest common denominator for everything these days?

I've never heard of such a thing, and I've worked in govt offices in the past which would likely be the nutjob jobsites that would try to enforce such a thing....

Because the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. :)
Seriously, though, it falls under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Re:Idiocracy

[Ultracrepidarian]

Natural selection at work.

Re:Idiocracy

[AK Marc]

I know some people with peanut allergies such that they will have issues if you sit next to them and eat it.

Re:Idiocracy

[CycleMan]

Why couldn't the driver just pull over for a few min to correspond with his boss? How do you know that the boss didn't assume that is what the driver would do because it is illegal to text and drive. How do you know there isn't a text to speech device that reads out texts as the driver gets them (actually pretty common in commercial trucks).

The text to speech device sounds cool; the reciprocal speech-to-text device is less reliable. Presuming the boss wants a response beyond a mere "ok", the driver has to engage in texting communications. As for pulling over, most commercial trucks have GPS and other tracking that identify what the vehicle is doing every minute. Fleet managers use this to monitor speed, for one, and ensure a driver isn't taking breaks and then speeding to make up for lost time. So they could know he's pulled over and get all irate about it if they chose.

I think it smacks of micromanaging, and putting people at risk for efficiency's sake, but people tend to do things I don't care for.

Re:Idiocracy

[AK Marc]

My son had his granola bar sent home with a warning. It said "contains traces of peanuts". We were only allowed to send "*may* contain traces of peanuts" or no-nut bars.

Re:Idiocracy

[JesseMcDonald]

I'm pretty sure your employer cannot expect you to perform illegal activities to maintain your job.

I think that depends on the state, specifically on whether the employer needs to give a reason for ending the employment. No court will uphold a contract requiring illegal activities, of course, but that doesn't automatically mean your job will continue to exist. (The likelihood that your employer may be facing charges for "inciting" illegal behavior makes that even less likely.)

Moving back toward the topic, I am firmly of the opinion that responsibility should end with the last person whose choice led to the outcome, not be spread out over everyone involved, however peripherally. In this case, that would be the driver. The entire situation could have been avoided by simply waiting to read the text when not on the road. Concerns about keeping one's job do not affect one's legal obligations.

Re:Idiocracy

[JesseMcDonald]

Driver alledges his dispatcher told him to answer the phone even while driving and he did so, claiming this led to the accident. ... Dispatcher and other management had signed statements on record with their insuror stating they educated their drivers in all applicable state and local laws as part of regular training...

These seems to be the only two relevant statements. The driver was educated in the applicable laws, and knowingly broke them, leading to the accident. It was the driver's choice, and thus the driver's fault.

When someone tells you to break the law, even your employer, you ignore them. That's just basic common sense, particularly when you've been trained in the laws specific to your situation and the other person (like the dispatcher in this case) has not.

Re:Idiocracy

[ArsonSmith]

The goal is to make everyone a criminal that way you can selectively enforce against the people you don't like.

Re:Idiocracy

[Em Adespoton]

People are increasingly that allergic to all sorts of things. Are you saying that if I have some communicable disease that you could die from, you should live in a bubble? Because allergies are just the immune system reacting to a perceived hostile substance.

A better analogy would be a case where everyone but you was a carrier of a disease and you were the only person in the area who could suffer severe adverse affects from it... like if your immune system was destroyed.

You may note that in that case, you would be put in a bubble.

Personally, I consider my analogy closer to the truth -- many people have allergies, even if very few send them into shock from exposure to the allergen.

Re:Idiocracy

[Prof.Phreak]

Probably the reverse. Lawyers don't sleep better at night if everyone else sleeps better at night.

Re:Idiocracy

[davester666]

I HATE listing while driving. I get into more accidents by listing than any other way.

Re:Idiocracy

[sl149q]

And it should also be obvious that if you gave Fred a couple of open beers to take with him for his drive home should make you partially responsible when he does drink them and get in an accident.

IFF you know someone is driving and IFF you know they will read the text without stopping, then you may be held liable if you send him a text.

IFF you have no idea if he is driving and IFF you have no idea that he might read without stopping then you would not be.

With Fred as the example, if he was bragging that he always reads texts while driving, and you had second thoughts about those beer and sent him a text saying "be sure not to drink those beers while driving home!" then you would be liable for the crash that Fred causes when he puts down that beer and tries to read your text.

Re:Idiocracy

[sl149q]

You will be responsible IFF Bob has limited liability insurance and you are rich. The lawyer for whoever he hits will be looking to sue who ever has deep pockets and might have the least smidgen of responsibility.

Making the assumption that you loose at court you will of course be able to sue Bob to try and recoup YOUR losses, but generally the reason you got sued was because Bob has no money and you do.

Re:Idiocracy

[philip.paradis]

Well, at least the United States, with our established accessory laws, hasn't quite risen to the level of prosecuting people for merely encouraging the commission of a crime. Otherwise, you could be just as well be fucked.

I'm trying to look on the bright side here. It's difficult, but I'm trying.

Re:Idiocracy

[ShoulderOfOrion]

This, combined with a one-strike-and-you're-out policy makes the most sense to me. There is a small but sizable segment of the population that just shouldn't be behind the wheels of a vehicle period. Smart-phone addicts that are incapable of pulling over to talk/text are part of that group.

Re:Idiocracy

[sjames]

Some people have no sense of smell at all. It sounds like you will be perfectly happy to sit next to someone like that whose hobby is pissing off skunks before work. We wouldn't want your special weakness to so-called smells to impede his life in any way, now would we?

Re:Idiocracy

[sjames]

That does exist, but it is actually a small number of people. The problem comes in when schools and such hear 'peanut allergy' and ASSuME it's the very rare potential fatal reaction sort rather than the much more common might get an itchy spot sort.

Re:Idiocracy

[sjames]

And easier still not commit murder.

Re:Idiocracy

[sabt-pestnu]

That looks a lot like a quote from something, but Google didn't find it for me. Could you cite your source?

I don't doubt you quoted it (misspelling and all), but perhaps I need a Pacer subscription instead of looking on Google?

Re:Idiocracy

[Hypotensive]

Merely sending a text message, or making a phone call, or being a talkative passenger, or something, is not a problem. Only doing so with knowledge (how this would be obtained is unclear, and the situation is hypothetical) that the driver will be distracted by your action is seen as problematic.

SMS, like email, is very specifically an asynchronous operation. It is intended that you only pick up your messages when you are in a position to do so.

If anyone other than the recipient is to blame for the lack of attention, it's the phone manufacturer for making it buzz or tinkle when a new message comes in, rather than the person who sent the message. Note, I'm not saying this is the case; IMO the full responsibility lies with the recipient as they can choose to turn off such notifications and indeed the device altogether.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

Lord do I hate people that think they know what's best for the rest of us & our children. Let me screw myself & children up in my own way. That's what my parent's did, and I turned out WAY better than the ones raised by the government(ie food stamps, "head start", etc).

Then screw them up in your own home rather than demanding that the school do everything the way you want it to be. Given that little tirade I really don't see evidence to back up your high opinion of yourself.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

Its the drivers duty to turn off their phone and ensure they are not distracted while driving.

It sounds to me that the judge was talking about a situation where for example a delivery company regularly texts its drivers information knowing that drivers don't typically stop to read them and couldn't do their job effectively if they did. In that situation a company that 'pretends' it doesn't know this is going on could, reasonably, be said to be partially accountable for the consequences.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

Why couldn't the driver just pull over for a few min to correspond with his boss? How do you know that the boss didn't assume that is what the driver would do because it is illegal to text and drive

We don't and that's why the person who sent the sms wasn't prosecuted in this case. What the judge is saying is that if it were the case that the boss 'knew' the drivers couldn't ignore the messages or viably perform their job if they stopped and ignored that then they could be partially liable. It isn't unusual for shipping companies to be running on tight schedules with driving restrictions and getting off a major highway, stopping, checking a message, starting and getting back onto the highway in a truck isn't a 10 second process.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

i text you at 5.30pm, and you read it and get in an accident. i know you typically commute at this time and are probably driving. am i at fault?

Did you also expect that he would read the text while driving? Because that's what the judge specifically mentioned. Consider it slightly differently: Your husband/wife/mother/son drives home from work from 17:00-17:30. You know from experience that they will check text messages when driving and think that is dangerous. Do you text them about something non-critical at 17:15 and if you did and they had an accident would you feel at all guilty?

I'm not entirely sure that criminal liability would be appropriate in that situation but I know I wouldn't text them because I would certainly feel partially responsible for the consequences.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

So should he not be able to text his driver or should we keep it simple and say its really the drivers responsibility to wait for a safe time to read and reply to messages?

It covers it clearly in the summary:

if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.

The texter needs to know the texter will view the text while driving. In a business context that would either mean that the texter a) knows the driver doesn't follow the no texting while driving rules and isn't dealing with it or b) knows that the job can't be viably performed without reading the texts while driving and isn't changing the processes to make it possible.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

Perhaps the boss can CALL the person

Which is exactly what this kind of judgement is supposed to encourage. It is saying to employers that you can't continue to turn a blind eye to drivers reading texts you are sending them while driving when you know they have to do it to do their job. If you need to contact a driver with a time critical message then don't do it by text.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later

Which is fine because it isn't equivalent to what the judge said (and is in the summary). The judge specifically said you would need to 'know', so to take your example you'd have to add the following a) Fred has been repeatedly caught drink driving before and you know this b) Fred has a drinking problem and finds it hard to stop once he starts and has already had a beer and you know this. That still might not be enough though. To know you'd be covered you'd probably have to have Fred ask for a drink for the road and hand him a bottle of beer for their to be no doubt.

Re:Idiocracy

[N1AK]

Seriously. The fucking summary points out that you need to 'know' they are going to read the message to risk being partially responsible. It's not that long and if you can't understand it then I really don't see why you think your opinion is so worthy of sharing.

Re:Idiocracy

[FatLittleMonkey]

my wife will know that 20 minutes later chances are higher than 90% that I will be driving.

That, or pulled over by the side of the road, answering her text.

Re:Idiocracy

[JWSmythe]

I've stopped listening to radio stations specifically for that reason. One had an ad that they played about every 15 minutes, with an ambulance siren. So during the evening commute, I could hear it about 8 times.

I don't know if they still play that ad. It's better that I listen to something else (or nothing at all), than rescan the environment for an emergency vehicle that isn't there.

Re: Idiocracy

[RaceProUK]

I thought that lawyers didn't sleep because if they stop swimming they will drown.

That's a myth. In reality, there is no known way to kill a lawyer. Even if you could, they're like the hydra - kill one, and two more will take its place.

Re:Idiocracy

[JWSmythe]

    I happen to be allergic to something that someone wears or uses at work. Last week, I had to spend some time outside, because they walked by my office, and I started sneezing constantly.

    I have no idea who it is, or what it is. Since it doesn't last all day, I assume it's someone reapplying their stink.

    I mentioned it in conversation with one of the executive's assistants. Well, because I was sitting outside sounding like I had a nasty cold that cleared up in about 15 minutes. They told me all I had to do was complain and they'd reinforce the policy against perfumes. I told them I won't complain, and would address it with the person directly if I ever find who it is.

    I was already able to definitely track one stink. It was room air freshener that someone used. I had suspicions. It was confirmed when I walked back into my office and started sneezing just a couple minutes after they had sprayed it. They still use it, but sparingly, and that doesn't make me sneeze. Problem solved. No official paperwork, and no hard feelings. :)

Re:Idiocracy

[Eraesr]

It's a whole different situation. If I bring a peanut butter sandwich to work, then I'm directly responsible for putting my colleague in danger. However, if I'm sending a text message to someone I know is driving, then my sending that text message is in no way directly responsible for whatever accident may happen due to the driver picking up the phone and reading the text message. The big difference is that the driver still has a choice here. It's the driver that makes the choice to check the text message. He isn't forced to. Your allergic colleague doesn't have the choice of being exposed to peanut butter or not (assuming this is a real, terrible case of peanut butter allergy) and has no real way of avoiding the consequences.

Re:Idiocracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Objection: A good many people absolutely can die within minutes from just touching what amounts to peanut dust. I work with someone like that and I've seen it personally.

You say "work with" in the present tense, and that you've seen [them absolutely die within minutes], so I presume you're working with zombies?

Re:Idiocracy

[Slashdot Parent]

The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.

This is all true, yet I'm still fairly comfortable with the narrowness of the rule.

I look at it like this. If I have a gun and you come up to me and say, "Hey, could I please borrow your gun? I want to go shoot my wife and run off with my girlfriend," wouldn't I be partly responsible for your wife's murder if I were to lend you my gun under the circumstances? Because that's the difference. If you had instead asked to borrow my gun to go blow off some steam at the target range, then I would not share in responsibility, because I couldn't have known your true intentions.

This case is the same. If I send you a text that I know you intend to read while driving, I know that that's dangerous, and I know that that's illegal, and I know that that could lead you to cause a collision. So why am I off the hook completely if you read my text and then crash into a busload of nuns? In this case, I still believe that the driver has primary responsibility for the collision (say, 90%), but am I really not even a tiny bit responsible for that negative outcome?

Re:Idiocracy

[Slashdot Parent]

Because when you try and make everyone responsible for everything the outcome is nobody is responsible for anything. The next level out is someone is going to suggest the telco can reasonably know if a phone is in a moving vehicle; so how come they failed to hold the messages until the phone was not observed to be traveling at rate a speed beyond a running human?

As we speak, people are working on a technical solution to try to prevent texting and driving. Personally, I think it will be impossible to do that without preventing passengers from texting, but anyway, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

Also, I'm OK with shared responsibility in this case, as long as it's clear that the driver is the primarily responsible party, and the text sender has to be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to have known that the driver was going to read the text while driving. In that case, the driver is still, what, 90% responsible? Seems reasonable.

Re:Idiocracy

[Slashdot Parent]

One issue I have with text records is that my phone will keep trying to send the message until it gets signal.

I didn't read the article, but from the discussion, it looks like the text sender, in order to share in liability for the collision, needs to have had reason to know that the driver was going to read the text while driving. In your case, you might have sent the text that the driver read while causing the collision, but that wouldn't be enough for you to share in liability because you wouldn't have had any reason to think that your text would have been read while driving. Heck, your text didn't even go out when you thought that it would.

Re:Idiocracy

[TemporalBeing]

They specifically say the person sending the text should have a reason to know the person was driving.

Yeah, it's stupid but don't bring up reason that don't apply.

So the court can bring up any dumbass scenario they want, but I can't?

No. The court is limited by law and legal precedence; they honor common law but are not strictly bound by it like they are written law. Lawyers can try to be innovative in their arguments to try to build new case-law (and thereby establish precedence) but they run a big risk if they do so.

In this case, it's a judge responding to one of the arguments made saying that he can see under certain circumstances where the liability would occur, but does not agree those circumstances match in this particular case. In other words, it's a valid argument but not valid in the current case. Another lawyer within the same jurisdiction in another case with slightly different facts can point to this as saying "it's a valid argument" now, but they would still have to establish the facts required to show that liability extends to the person sending the text as well - which will still not be an easy thing to do. A lawyer in another jurisdiction might have a little bit easier time, but they would also have to pursuade the judge that what this judge said is supported by the law (precedence, etc) in that jurisdiction too.

Re:Idiocracy

[hypergreatthing]

Those are awful court decision. Replace woman taking off their blouse with signage, advertisements, police sirens, speed limit signs, noisy kids in the car, radio, etc and there are literally hundreds of possible distractions to a driver. If the driver does not take responsibility for his/her own actions then they shouldn't be driving. Period.

When you get behind the wheel of a car, you take responsibility for driving yourself, those in your vehicle and other drivers around you, and should perform and pay attention to the best of your ability as the situation demands. Anything else is a failing on your own part and no one else's.

Re:Idiocracy

[MiniMike]

Just don't send him a text message while he's eating your sandwich and you'll be ok.

Re:Idiocracy

[Capt.Albatross]

I think that the punchline is " if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."

Agreed, and I wonder if the judges are thinking of situations such as where a company texts one of their drivers while she is on the road, especially if the company has created an environment where the driver is under pressure to respond immediately.

On the other hand, this is mainly just another revenue stream for lawyers, because you know it is going to be pursued in every case, regardless of whether it is plausible the sender knew, and the sender will have to defend against it.

Re:Idiocracy

[Cosgrach]

Sadly, I believe that it will.

Re:Idiocracy

[RavenLrD20k]

I don't care who you are. I am not responsible for your lack of impulse control.

Re:Idiocracy

[alexo]

> Well, if you put it like that, then yeah, the court's decision would be nonsensical. But the court didn't say that. The court said that you share responsibility if you have good reasons to believe the text receiver is not merely driving, but will read the text while driving.

You repeating the nonsense doesn't make it any less moronic.

Let's try to keep a modicum of civility. Using words like "nonsense" and "moronic" does nothing to advance your argument.

The driver has free will. The driver as moral awareness. The driver is a legal adult. The driver is capable of being in control of himself and the situation.

If you really believe that this is the case then you are off the hook.

However, as the court said, if you know (or have a good reason to believe) that the driver is not "capable of being in control of himself and the situation", and still send this driver a text message, you should share the blame for the consequences.
Yes, this is a pretty far-fetched hypothetical situation, but it can happen.

It's the driver's duty to not do dangerous stupid shit.

And it is your duty to avoid knowingly putting them in a situation where they will likely "do dangerous stupid shit".

You demean all of us when you try to strip people of moral responsibility for their actions. You turn us into something less than human.

Not at all. "He" just wants you to bear the moral responsibility for your actions.

Re:Idiocracy

[fractoid]

What if a radio DJ makes a shocking announcement and he knows or has special reason to know someone may be listing while driving?

God damn songs with car horns or screeching tyres or police sirens in them. Yes, you can figure out that it's in the music and not in your environment but it's distracting enough for a second or two that it could contribute to an accident.

Re:Idiocracy

[ai4px]

....except the example with Bob being allergic to peanut butter because Bob is allergic to peanut butter every day. How about you make it illegal for me to bring a peanut butter sandwich on days that Bob wears a white tie? How am I to know Bob will be wearing a white tie today when I pack my lunch? Bob needs to stay away from my peanut butter sandwich if he doesn't want a stain on his white tie. Just as in TFA, how am I to know Bob is driving his car when I press send? Seems the onus is on Bob to not dick around with his phone when it's not safe. Seems to me that it's safer to send someone a text which they can answer at their leisure than to call them and make them be distracted while talking to me. Sheesh.... yet another impossible to enforce law. Soon, we'll have enough laws everyone will be a criminal.

Re:Idiocracy

[farble1670]

Did you also expect that he would read the text while driving?

so now you are going to prove what i expected?

Do you text them about something non-critical at 17:15 and if you did and they had an accident would you feel at all guilty?

that's like asking if i feel guilty that my spouse was run over by a drunk driver because i asked her to pick up some milk from the store. ya, i'd probably feel guilty, but no i don't think i should be held accountable in the eyes of the law.

Re:Idiocracy

[fractoid]

Stop it with this pointless common sense and responsibility-taking. If everyone behaved like you then there'd be no frivolous lawsuits!

Re:Idiocracy

[Maxo-Texas]

If you recurse that one step back, you get to the people subverting mother nature and manipulating the genetics of peanuts to make them better for sale and harvest.

Why do we care?

Because today it's them, but tomorrow it might be us.
So we all help each other out. Altruism from self interest.

Re:Idiocracy

[stoatwblr]

I'm lactose intolerant(*) but it just gives me cramps and a little bit of gas(**). There's a big difference between intolerant and allergic.

OTOH, I've seen what happens when XYZ food manufacturer runs out of cornflour when making gluten-free product and substitutes wheatflour. Reactions among several coeliac friends ranged from cramps to 3 days in hospital.

(*) MOST adult humans are lactose intolerant. Only Mongolians and Caucasians have developed the mutations which keeps them producing rennin. The issue is that uncleaved lactose molecules pass into the bowel where bacteria can feed on it and generate gas.

(**) My reaction is typical. Those who get violently ill are probably allergic to caesein proteins, not lactose intolerant.

Re:Idiocracy

[stoatwblr]

"Why couldn't the driver just pull over for a few min to correspond with his boss?"

In most jurisdictions it's an offence to stop on the freeway/motorway in absence of an emergency

Discussions about the USA's exploitative labour laws belong elsewhere. They read like a return to the 1820s.

Re:Idiocracy

[stoatwblr]

"if a "pretty girl" decided to flash her chest at male drivers at a busy intersection, and there was an accident, I'd say it would be pretty likely that, in addition to any indecency charges, the woman would be held partly accountable for the carnage"

I know of a couple of cases where this DID happen. The women concerned were convicted of causing a traffic hazard (no indecency charges were laid).

Re:Idiocracy

[crc-check]

Look, the law is not concerned with 'what ifs' and 'possibilities'...

Isn't your whole argument based on "what ifs" and "possibilities"?

Now, suppose

ummm....

'ignore the text and lose my job, or look at the text and maybe be in an accident'

You're premises play on emotions but not facts; which makes your arguments weak. I do understand the point you are trying to make, but I'm not convinced.

The bottom line is that texting is time delayed, asynchronous communication method. You, the receiver, choose the time and place to view and send text messages. I don't see a lot of coercion happening in a vehicle when you are by yourself.
 

Re:Idiocracy

[cayenne8]

The "lowest common denominator" is the vocal minority who feel their "right" to bring a peanut butter sandwich or wear a particular fragrance to work outweighs the rights of others to come to work without fear of developing an illness, or work.

I disagree...that definition doesn't represent the definition of the terms minority/majority.

The majority of people like to eat freely, many if not most enjoy a nice peanut butter sandwhich from time to time, or like to smell nice. If this wasn't the case,they'd certainly not be making so much selling the stuff.

Why should we the majority have to cater our behavior to the very few minority of folks that have a problem, real or perceived....with foods or smells.

What about foods and religion. Does my eating a ham sandwich offend some muslims in the office? IF they complain does that mean everyone can no longer eat that at their desks?

If you can't live and deal in the real world, buy yourself a fucking bubble, and crawl in it so you won't die when someone happens to open up their lunchbox near you.

Geez....

Re:Idiocracy

[show me altoids]

Oh, so much this. I have been startled enough by this kind of thing that I jumped and looked around, probably yanking the steering wheel a bit.

Re:Idiocracy

[gregorthebigmac]

The driver in this case was a truck driver, he probably worked for a trucking company. Now, suppose his boss had the habit of texting him 'urgent' information, and that continued employment depending on responding to/acting on those texts.

If that were the case, then he could easily blame his employer for encouraging him, if not mandating him to break the law, and his employer should be held accountable in court. There is still no excusable reason for him to be checking his phone while driving a +20 ton vehicle in traffic, and if his employer is telling him to do so, then let them hang for it.

Re:Idiocracy

[S1ngularity]

Saw a case on this a few years back. A kid was being bullied (bully stealing his lunch). So, one day kid peed in his own thermos... and waited. TL;DR, charges on account of special knowledge that bully would consume said pee.

Re:Idiocracy

[SuperTechnoNerd]

On my drive to work, the local radio stations morning radio show can be so funny I can't stop laughing and my eyes tear up. If I crash can I sue for excess humor?

Re:Idiocracy

[hermitdev]

It is far more nuanced in the US that just the 50 different states. There's typically 4 levels of jurisdiction: Federal, State, County and Municipality. You can drive through an intersection and suddenly be met by different laws regarding cellphone use.

Re:Idiocracy

[Sparton]

How about this:

It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable.

It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario, and it shows how this DOES in fact, strip the actual person responsible of their moral responsibility.

Except this isn't a perfect analogy.

The judge ruled:

that a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.

The key is "if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving." As in, you know or have reason to know that you are putting the recipient at risk.

So the perfect analogy would be as you describe only if you add the knowledge that the gifting person knows Fred has a history of drinking and driving and knows that he will do so with the beer you've provided, or that Fred mentioned he will drink it as he's driving.

Knowledge that the risk is (or almost certainly is) increased is key. This does go hand in hand with reducing the responsibility for a given party to less than 100%, but it is not the completely stripping it that you have stated.

Re:Idiocracy

[AK Marc]

You text someone "Hi, where are you?" They reply "I'm driving on the freeway." You now know two things, they are driving, and they read (and reply to) texts while driving. Sending further texts is something *you* are responsible for. If you send it knowing they will read it, then you share responsibility if that distraction causes a crash.

* "know" and "knowing" being the legal standard, not the philosophical or mathematical proof definition.

Re:Idiocracy

[St.Creed]

My son is actually 10 and carries an epipen. He's off the chart on the bloodtest for nut-allergies and he can't bear to eat even a milligram of peanuts before having to throw up. And choking. The choking part goes quite slow though - it takes about an hour before it becomes lethal. However, even that varies from time to time. At one time he just fell off the couch right after eating something that turned out to contain pistachios. That was scary.

But in every case we reinforced the message: ALWAYS check what you eat - even if your own parents give it to you, because we too can make a mistake. And ALWAYS make sure you have your medication with you, and go to the doctor quickly. Yes that sucks but the alternative sucks much more. And he's pretty good with that.

I've also been reading about this subject area extensively. While sitting next to someone eating peanuts can be hazardous, there is no list of children dying each year from walking into the same room as a peanut butter sandwich. I assure you that in that case, we'd hear about it a lot more. In fact, there is no such case and even when eating peanut butter sandwiches, dying from it is pretty rare. In 2005, just 11 persons died in the US. From all food allergies combined. And that is almost exclusively from eating the stuff and then either:
1) Failing to get treatment (the Australian kid)
or
2) Getting the wrong treatment (American kid) - using an epipen and thinking you're safe if you do. An epipen is NOT treatment, it's a stopgap measure to keep you alive for about 15 minutes so you can get effective treatment - which usually includes pretty strong antihistamines and/or prednison.

So school zones are not a help, they're a hindrance. People feel safer when in actual life the kids are probably LESS safe. When they leave school, there are no more school zones but they still have the expectation that everything is like that. They're trained to be helpless. Get rid of the schoolzones - but do inform the teachers and parents - and educate the kids.

Anyway - I'm putting my money where my mouth is and training my kid instead of expecting society to change for him. We'll just have to see how that works out in the long run, but I'm pretty confident he'll do better in unexpected circumstances than if the world was adjusted to suit him.

Re:Idiocracy

[Keith111]

"If I bring a peanut butter sandwich to work, then I'm directly responsible for putting my colleague in danger"............ Did I just read that? LOL. No. Just no. I have a pile of coins on my desk, doesn't mean I directly put my colleague in danger of choking or abdominal injuries incase they decide to swallow them.

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

It's a whole different situation. If I bring a peanut butter sandwich to work, then I'm directly responsible for putting my colleague in danger. However, if I'm sending a text message to someone I know is driving, then my sending that text message is in no way directly responsible for whatever accident may happen due to the driver picking up the phone and reading the text message. The big difference is that the driver still has a choice here. It's the driver that makes the choice to check the text message. He isn't forced to. Your allergic colleague doesn't have the choice of being exposed to peanut butter or not (assuming this is a real, terrible case of peanut butter allergy) and has no real way of avoiding the consequences.

I understand what you are saying, however, the judge in the case would seem to differ and in a court, neither my nor your opinion count. Let's break the texting thing down to its core issue. If somebody is driving and while they are driving you do something that you knowingly will distract them and because of that distraction they are involved in an accident, are you liable? In a nutshell, that is what is the issue, is it not?

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

Those are awful court decision. Replace woman taking off their blouse with signage, advertisements, police sirens, speed limit signs, noisy kids in the car, radio, etc and there are literally hundreds of possible distractions to a driver. If the driver does not take responsibility for his/her own actions then they shouldn't be driving. Period.

When you get behind the wheel of a car, you take responsibility for driving yourself, those in your vehicle and other drivers around you, and should perform and pay attention to the best of your ability as the situation demands. Anything else is a failing on your own part and no one else's.

While I agree with part of what you are saying, signage, advertisements, etc. don't exhibit intent nor the ability to reason. As for the other distractions you list, yes, there are hundreds of distractions, but again, a fussy child in the back seat, is not the same as some woman flashing people down the highway. Is it conceivable to reasonable human being that such an action might distract a driver enough that an accident could ensue? If a jury thinks yes, then the woman has contributed to the cause of the accident. Often in these cases, charges are reduced against the driver because the distraction was so out of the ordinary from what one would expect while driving.

You are correct that when we drive, we need to be responsible. But, at some point if others are deliberately trying to distract you and there is an accident that you are at fault for and that distraction was germane to the accident, they share in the guilt. Do they not?

Re:Idiocracy

[Dcnjoe60]

....except the example with Bob being allergic to peanut butter because Bob is allergic to peanut butter every day. How about you make it illegal for me to bring a peanut butter sandwich on days that Bob wears a white tie? How am I to know Bob will be wearing a white tie today when I pack my lunch? Bob needs to stay away from my peanut butter sandwich if he doesn't want a stain on his white tie. Just as in TFA, how am I to know Bob is driving his car when I press send? Seems the onus is on Bob to not dick around with his phone when it's not safe. Seems to me that it's safer to send someone a text which they can answer at their leisure than to call them and make them be distracted while talking to me. Sheesh.... yet another impossible to enforce law. Soon, we'll have enough laws everyone will be a criminal.

As the judge said, the the texter knew the guy was driving. So if you don't know he is driving it's not an issue, but if you are aware, then it is. How you know doesn't matter, that you know does. Next, they aren't talking about a single text or even two, but the continual texting back and forth. As an example you text Mary and she texts back that she can't text because she's on the highway. You now know she's driving if you continue to text and it distracts her and there is an accident because of it, why shouldn't you be accountable for your actions? Finally, you think it won't be enforceable, and yet, they are only talking about enforcing it when it contributes to an accident, so since they know there is an accident, it is likely to be enforced, particularly if there is an investigation as to the cause of the accident.

What I find interesting is how many people in slashdot are incensed by the notion they could be in trouble for continuously texting somebody while they are driving. Are we on slashdot so ignorant of the risks to the person driving that arise from texting and driving that we actually feel we must defend the practice or is it that we just don't like being told what to do or not to do?

Re: Idiocracy

[kermidge]

Boss to driver: We just found out - one of your packages is a bomb.

Less drastic: Before you make your drop, stop at Ernie's, pick up package.

Superfluous but important: Congrats - it's a girl!

Laws without context are Procrustean; judges without discretion aren't judges.

Re:Idiocracy

[DutchUncle]

I want to see a law specifying what it takes to be an Accessory to Stupidity.

Re:Idiocracy

[bingoUV]

Maybe we need to just grow up and realize we are never going to live in a perfect world where nothing bad happens

Yes, there should be a law for this.

Re:Idiocracy

[niftymitch]

I think that the punchline is " if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."
...snip...

It is interesting... My local police department sends text messages with traffic alerts.

Lane blocked, shooting, Amber Alert", about three important ones a month and you bet
they are worth knowing about.

This ruling is a massive tangle as it reaches beyond local, state and national boundaries.

Perhaps it is just an additional reason to steal and unlock personal electronics only to sell them at auction.

Re:Idiocracy

[niftymitch]

Aha... perfume...

As someone that suffers from reactions to many and often the "Good and Expensive" ones this is an issue.

Perfume may be an interesting exception.

It is known that many of the secret ingredients in these products are trouble. But somehow they
have carved out exceptions that let them ship carcinogenic compounds when used as fragrance.

Diapers, trash can bags, deodorant, soaps, hair foo poo and more all contain 'secret' stuff.

No wonder the rate of respiratory illnesses is up in young and old alike. I once was asked
to go get an inhaler from a friends BR for their daughter. Smelled nice (the bed room), but
my eyes watered and the daughter had asthma. Gobsmacked me, but they cannot even smell it
they are so used to the assault.

At a friends company the home office employes this outstanding accountant. Good at her job
and golly good looking too. BUT perfume, her perfume was so thick that just walking in the
building you knew she was in town.

As luck would have it the previous tenant had a "cigar" room with hookah friendly exhaust fans and
big windows. The room made for a decent visitor office and the windows were a bonus in the
eyes of some.

Re:Idiocracy

[locofungus]

There's also the problem of people hearing "nut allergy" and assuming it's peanuts.

I have a friend who is allergic to some nuts. Hazelnuts are the worst. She says that the reaction happens so fast that usually she can spit anything out that has hazelnuts in it before she swallows it but they are potentially life threatening.

However, she can eat peanuts without any problem. "Peanuts aren't nuts" is her common refrain.

Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[studpuppy]

Would seem that any action that distracts a driver would then be fair game. Called someone you know on their mobile phone? Even the simple act of them having to reach for the phone, or put their bluetooth headset one, or (heck) even press the answer button on their in-dash system could be argued by a lawyer to have caused a distraction. And what's next? Can I be liable simply for waiving at someone from the sidewalk? After all, they may have to turn their head to see who it was that was waiving, and next thing you know.... BLAM! sigh. I sure do love living in NJ at times.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[SJHillman]

It does seem like we're trying to shift the blame. The driver does not have to read the text or answer the phone. In fact, the driver can easily disable the wireless on their phone while driving or take other steps so that they won't even know someone is trying to reach them. Plenty of people can argue that they NEED to know if someone is calling them, but let's be realistic: of all of the drivers on the road with cell phones, how many actually NEED to know about a text/call the very moment it happens? A majority of drives are only a few miles (less than 20 or 30 minutes) anyway - what information does Joe Average need to expect on a regular basis that can't wait 20 minutes?

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[ZombieBraintrust]

It would apply. If your running a trucking company then you will have procedures for calling your truckers. If those procedures don't involve hands free equipment then the trucking company would be liable. The judge just left wiggle room so a different judge can use common sense.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[Jmc23]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? It's about whether the person knew the recipient was in an unsafe environment.

Let's say you see your friend crossing the street and a big mac truck bearing down on her. If you holler her name from her 5, forcing her to stop and turn her view away from danger and towards you, then yes, you're an idiot and should be blamed.

I know it's hard for a lot of the whiny babies to understand, but eventually we all have to accept responsability for everything we've played a part in.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[TheCarp]

While I disagree that this is that big a deal, especially in light of the evidence that the people who get in accidents with cell phones get in just as many accidents without them (gee what is the common link there?) which seriously makes me think that the whole issue is a matter of not recognizing the inherent self-selection in accident statistics than anything.....

aside from that, this is essentially the same argument I used to make when people would be concerned about me occasionally turning off the ringer on my phone or leaving it somewhere so as not to bother me.

Mom: "What if there was an emergency and your grandmother got hurt?"
Me: "Then you should call the hospital, I am not an ambulance, and have no medical training; I likely can't help."

As if me not knowing the very moment someone died or was seriously injured was somehow important. Yes I may only find out hours later. Yes I may miss the opportunity to see them alive one more time.... no I don' lose any sleep over it.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[fast turtle]

As a retired commercial driver, this also covers satelite comn systems that large transportation companies use such as FedEx/UPS and many other couriers along with trucking companies such as Schnieder (big orange trucks) Werner, Jb Hunt and a whole bunch of others.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[Xtifr]

The driver does not have to read the text or answer the phone.

Yes, but many people do, and if it's someone you know, you may well also know that they will do so in response to your text.

I really don't have a problem with this as long as it's strictly limited to cases where the texter indeed had good reason both to know that the recipient was driving, and to expect that he would attempt to respond. The prosecution would have to establish both facts beyond a reasonable doubt (since we're talking criminal charges here).

It's really common sense: if you know your buddy is kind of a dumbass about such things, don't text him when you know he's driving. I already have people I apply this rule to.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[St.Creed]

"Don't hate me because I'm beautiful!"

"Of course we don't hate you. We just sue you because you distracted all the drivers and caused two accidents with your evil good looks. And may I point out, Your honour, that she willfully went out into the street wearing nothing but a jeans and a t-shirt?"

I'm pretty sure the Burka will be implemented in NJ around 2015 as a mandatory dress for both sexes.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[David_Hart]

It's really common sense: if you know your buddy is kind of a dumbass about such things, don't text him when you know he's driving. I already have people I apply this rule to.

No, it's not... It doesn't matter if he is a dumbass or not. You are not legally responsible for his behavior. He is.

I applaud your efforts at being a good friend but, in my opinion, that does not diminish his personal legal responsibility to operate a car in a safe manner in any way. Nor does that transfer his legal responsibility to you.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[Xtifr]

No, it's not... It doesn't matter if he is a dumbass or not. You are not legally responsible for his behavior. He is.

Since the court said otherwise, I find my willingness to accept you as an expert on who is or is not legally responsible somewhat limited. Unless you'd care to divulge where you got your degree in law? (I'm pretty sure I can find out where the judge got his.)

that does not diminish his personal legal responsibility to operate a car in a safe manner in any way. Nor does that transfer his legal responsibility to you.

That can be true without removing your liability. Your liability can exist without diminishing or transferring his. Just as (ferexample), a getaway driver can be liable for his part in a bank robbery without diminishing or transferring the liability of the people who actually went in and robbed the bank.

So you're correct to say that this won't excuse the driver in any way, but incorrect to suggest that that somehow gets you off the hook.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[Raenex]

Can I be liable simply for waiving at someone from the sidewalk?

Waived for what?

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[JoelKatz]

That's still completely absurd. The risk of an accident from a driver receiving a single text is microscopic. The idea that one can "recklessly" create such a small risk is bizarre.

Say I convince my friend that he really would like a Slurpee and he drives 30 minutes to 7-11 and back to get one. On the way, he loses control of his car and runs into another car. Surely the risk of an additional car on the road for 30 minutes is greater than the risk of receiving a single text. Should I be liable if I create that risk "recklessly"?

We prohibit texting while driving because the cumulative risk of the large numbers of texts received isn't justified by the small social benefits of texting while driving. It's not because receiving a single text while driving is an unreasonable danger to accept.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[Xtifr]

The idea that one can "recklessly" create such a small risk is bizarre.

Bizarre? Certainly. In fact, the judge here made it fairly clear that the bar is very high in attempting such a prosection. Remember, he ruled for the defendant. Which is a good precedent to have on the books. All he really did is refuse to say that it's impossible that anyone could ever be guilty in this way. Which I think is reasonable; I dislike overbroad rulings. They tend to have unwanted side-effects.

Your risk analysis misses the point. This is not about risk analysis--this is about legality. Judges don't make the laws. Inducing your friend to drive is not illegal, because driving is not illegal, despite being risky. Texting while driving is illegal. Thus, inducing someone to text while driving might be illegal. But it's also now clear that any such case is going to have to be extremely solid. The prosecution will have to prove that you both knew your friend was driving and that you knew he was likely to respond to your text while still driving. If they can actually prove all that beyond any reasonable doubt, well, I'm not sure that prosecuting you is the wrong thing to do.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[JoelKatz]

Whether or not the conduct creates an unreasonable risk has nothing to do with whether that conduct is legal or not.

Re:Wouldn't that same logic apply to calling them?

[Xtifr]

Right. It's not about the risk. Inducing someone into illegal behavior is illegal, and texting-while-driving is illegal behavior.

Missing the point of text messages...

[TheNastyInThePasty]

The whole point of text messages is to allow for asynchronous communications with someone. Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text. Could you blame Facebook for pushing an update to your phone while you're driving if you looked at it and crashed?

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[DigitAl56K]

I was going to post something similar to what you wrote, then I thought about it further.

Say you're not only texting someone, but you're actively engaged in a bidirectional conversation over SMS, whilst knowing they are driving. E.g. recipient responds to you "I'm driving right now, but what do you need?". If you text them back, then you a) Know they're driving and reading/responding to SMSs, b) Choosing to exacerbate this situation you know is illegal and dangerous.

I fully agree that SMS by design doesn't require an immediate/any response, but if you know someone is putting themselves in danger and you choose to encourage them to continue that behavior, then the argument that you're partly responsible isn't quite as outrageous as it sounds. If my SO replied to me that she was driving during an SMS conversation, for example, would I as a reasonable person choose to continue that conversation?

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[mark-t]

How, generally speaking, would the sender necessarily know that the recipient is driving at the time? I'm not saying it can't happen, but it would seem to me to be quite far removed from the general rule.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Bill Dimm]

senders who know the recipient is driving at the time...Facebook couldn't know

You greatly underestimate how much data Facebook is collecting about you ;-) (that's a joke, not a claim to inside info on Facebook's operations).

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Reibisch]

For someone who agrees with his overall point, it missed your head by a mile or two. Try looking up the definition of 'asynchronous'.

His point is that the sender may know someone is driving but expect that driver to show reasonable judgement before reading or responding. Simply knowing someone is driving shouldn't hold the sender liable. My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[girlintraining]

'...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"

Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text.

The law doesn't look at this that way, and the judge is basing his opinion squarely within long-standing legal precident. However you want to classify the behavior, the judge still has a strongly defensible position, legally.

Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun. You didn't though, for whatever reason. During the robbery, a security guard shows up. He shoots at you and your friend -- your friend shoots back, killing the guard. You are liable for his death. Yet you weren't armed and in fact, were only shot at. The courts reason that because you had knowledge of the gun ahead of time, you could reasonably foresee its use, and by not stopping your friend you were complicit in allowing it to happen. Say hello to thirty years. Look up felony manslaughter for a more detailed description. Your mere knowledge of that gun is what turned simple robbery into felony manslaughter. If you hadn't known, you wouldn't be ordinarily liable in most jurisdictions.

The law is quite clear on this point: If you have knowledge of illegal activity, regardless of your own intent, etc. and fail to act you're just as guilty as the person who did it. In fact, if the other person has diminished capacity, or extenuating circumstances, you could even face a harsher penalty than they will -- simply by knowing what's going on! You weren't involved at all, but you're the one heading to the slammer.

Yes, this is "just" a cell phone, but legally, it's no different than it being "just" a beer. If you let someone drive home drunk, and they kill someone, there's some guys in blue uniforms outside that want to talk to you. This judge is saying a cell phone is no different, as a legal instrument.

And he's right.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Jmc23]

You need to get out and meet some humans if you think texting someone while driving is the best time. Patience doesn't come installed by default.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[SJHillman]

Other scenarios that are no more stupid than texting-a-driver-is-illegal.
1) A text makes someone not pull out on time. The texter now owes child support.
2) A text causes someone to forget to clarify no mayo on their double bacon burger. The texter must now pay for liposuction.
3) A text distracts someone from their last minute bid on eBay. Texter must now provide that limited edition, gold plated John Lennon semen.
4) A text distracts an AC for precious seconds, making their First Post the fifth or sixth one down. Ok, this one would have no noticeable effect.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[bickerdyke]

and because the sender usually doesn't know, this ruling will have almost no effect at all. No implication has been made on how the sender could, might or should know that the recipient is driving. This is an hypothetical If the sender (somehow) knows the the recipient is driving and knows him well enough to know he's irresponsible enough to read text while driving then he might be held responsible. Which in this case would limit responsibilite to cases where the sender is somehow responsible.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[bickerdyke]

AND knowing that regularly read their messages while driving.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[s.petry]

Your example is absolutely wrong.

An example that would fit is that you know your friend bought a gun legally. That is the end of your knowledge. Suddenly the Police show up because your friend committed armed robbery. You were implicated because you had knowledge of the gun, and no knowledge of the crime.

An even better example would be this. You know your friend bought a motorcycle. The police show up and arrest you because your friend committed vehicular homicide.

There is a huge difference between knowing someone owns a legal device (in which a car can be a murder weapon) and knowing that they intent to use it for criminal purposes at some point in the future.

Don't confuse my example with your friend buying a gun and telling you he was going to rob a bank.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy:

Person A sends person B to the store 15 minutes away. 5 minutes after person B leaves person A, person A texts person B.

Person A texts person B. Person B texts back "I'm driving". Person A continues to text person B.

Person A is person B's boss or coworker and person B's job is delivery driver. Person B is out making deliveries.

There are three right off the top of my head.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Cro Magnon]

senders who know the recipient is driving at the time...Facebook couldn't know

You greatly underestimate how much data Facebook is collecting about you ;-) (that's a joke, not a claim to inside info on Facebook's operations).

And, I'm sure Zuckerburg knows it was a joke.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Jason Levine]

About the only way I can see this being an issue is if the text conversation went:

A: "What's up?"
B: "Nothing much. Just driving."
A: "You're texting while driving?"
B: "Yup."
A: "Want to meet at the pizzeria on fifth and main for lunch?"
[B doesn't answer because he just hit another car looking at A's text.]

Of course, in this case A might (at most) have a moral duty not to text B since he knows B is texting while driving. I don't think that translates into a legal duty, however. The decision to read or answer the text (or phone call, or e-mail, or anything else) is the driver's alone. He's the only one who r legal responsibility.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Obfuscant]

His point is that the sender may know someone is driving but expect that driver to show reasonable judgement before reading or responding. Simply knowing someone is driving shouldn't hold the sender liable.

I think that's why the following was included in the summary:

"... if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving."

So not "if the sender knows the recipient is driving", but a much more stringent "knows the driver will view the text".

For example, you know your friend is a Manchester United fanatic and he's missing the match because he's driving his kid back to Uni. You text him with the subject "ManU match status" or simply "GOOOOOOOOOOOAL!". You can be pretty sure he's going to read it right away. In fact, your motive in texting in the first place is to keep him up to date on the match.

My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.

Then since she would know this, she's not liable.

This isn't much different than other laws. A bartender can be liable if he serves a patron who is obviously drunk and has reason to believe that the patron will attempt to drive. We've got a case in court here where not only the last bartender to serve a guy who caused a fatal crash is being sued, but the bartender at the bar the guy was at before the last bar. And both bartenders correctly refused to serve him. That's why he got in his car and drove away.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[fast turtle]

Luv it Baby - a perfect excuse to kill Facebook.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[pr0fessor]

My wife sends me text messages frequently while I'm driving, but that doesn't mean I whip out my phone to check it immediately upon alert.

My wife and I have had this argument...

Wife: "Why didn't you answer my text?"
Me: "I was only a few blocks from the house."
Wife: "Why do you need a cell phone if you don't read your texts."
Me: "Fine next time I'll respond as I'm walking the door instead of actually talking to you."

Then I sit in the same room texting her but not talking to her.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mis-read his comment. It says that you are robbing the store with your friend and he bRought, as in, BROUGHT(not bought), a gun with him, and you know this before you start the robbery.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Xtifr]

It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text.

I know quite people who insist on reading texts while driving, and I do try to avoid texting them when I know they're driving. If you don't, you are putting people's lives at risk. And yes, I think that in that case (and only in that case), you deserve a share of the blame.

Facebook can't be blamed because Facebook can't possibly know that the person has stupid habits or that they happen to be driving. But when it comes to your friends, you can know---sometimes.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Xtifr]

How, generally speaking, would the sender necessarily know that the recipient is driving at the time?

One, the person may have a regular schedule, and invariably be on the road between certain hours every morning and evening. (This is fairly common outside the computer industry, believe it or not.) Two, you just saw them leave. Three, you just received a message announcing that they're on their way. There's probably more, but that should certainly do for a start.

Yes, there may be lots of times where you don't know, but there are still going to be plenty of times when you do. And if you also know that they're the sort of dumbass who is likely to try to respond to a text while driving, well...I don't see it as far-fetched to assign you part of the blame. I'd certainly blame myself if I possessed all the knowledge this seems to require and did it anyway.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[squiggleslash]

Absolutely none of your analogies fit. Remember, the judge didn't say "Texting to someone who owns a car is illegal", they said "You share responsibility if you know that the recepient of your text message is driving and are going to respond to it."

For example:

Me: "WHERE R U?"
Her: "ON I-95, BE HOME IN 10 MINS"

If there's an accident, she's 100% to blame.

However,

Me: "WHERE R U?"
Her: "ON I-95, BE HOME IN 10 MINS"
Me: "COOL. CAN YOU PASS BY SUPERMARKET AND GET MILK?"

If there's an accident, we share blame.

What's the difference between the two? In the first case I don't respond. I find out my wife is driving, via a text from her which means she's driving, reading texts while driving, and responding to texts while driving, and I can reasonably infer that if I send her something else she'll respond to that too. I avoid responding.

In the second case, I make that inference, but I decide to continue sending her messages, knowing damned well she may well respond to them, and will almost certainly read them, while driving.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[tlhIngan]

The whole point of text messages is to allow for asynchronous communications with someone. Texting someone while they're driving is one of the best times to do it because it means they can get back to you whenever they're done. It's the driver's fault completely for looking at the text. Could you blame Facebook for pushing an update to your phone while you're driving if you looked at it and crashed?

Unfortunately, that was the point of SMS - to be able to send a message asynchronously.

The problem is people are using it as an alternate form of instant messaging, and with that brings the same expectations - you're considered "rude" and "ignoring them" if you don't respond in 20 seconds.

Yes, real world expectations are unrealistic but a lot of significant others do get rather pissy if you do not respond in a timely fashion.

And we may have Apple to blame for making SMS appear like a chat session rather than say, an email session.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[fnj]

If you won't just say it, I will. The law is an ASS, and the judges in that New Jersey state appeals court are a BUNCH OF CLOWNS who deserve to be struck by lightning and rot in hell. This is me symbolically sticking my tongue out and mooning them.

Guess the wife better not wave and blow a kiss to the husband as he drives off to work, either.

FUCK YOU, nazis.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[Threni]

> What's the difference between the two? In the first case I don't respond. I find out
> my wife is driving, via a text from her which means she's driving, reading texts while
> driving, and responding to texts while driving, and I can reasonably infer that if I send
> her something else she'll respond to that too. I avoid responding.

Whilst I can imagine that may be a crime somewhere, it's a stupid piece of law.

A better law would allow that you text someone, knowing full well that they're driving, trusting that they have the common sense not to read it whilst they are driving; if they cause an accident reading/replying, that's their problem not yours, because you just sent a message.

What, the law now is that immediately upon realising they're driving you have to wait for them to text you before you can text them again? I mean, after all, you might leave it 6 hours, text them, and discover they were driving across the country. What if you text them with `after you've stopped and pulled over safely, please phone me`? What about an email to a driver with a smartphone? Turn by turn navigation? That ok? "Turn left in half a mile" is ok but a little beep to show that a text has arrived makes you guilty of some retarded "well we've got to blame someone" law?

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[s.petry]

Are you assumed to know via esp, osmosis, telepathic link, etc... that your wife is not pulled over to respond to your text? In a parking lot ready to leave? Just stopped at a red light so has a minimum of 30 seconds to see/respond to texts? I'll give you that you would know your wife has voice to text, but not whether or not you "know" she is using it.

You simply can not know without evidence, and a no law will change that fact.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[s.petry]

I did not misread, I gave separate analogies. Changing their comment from "brought" to "bought" would not make any difference on why their analogy is wrong.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[squiggleslash]

This is a balance of probabilities - the court is determining who pays how much of the damages. The fact she's on an interstate highway she's not at a red light, and realistically people don't pull over to read text messages. (Someone might pull over to respond to one, but they've already crossed the line by reading it.)

(Of course, my wife wouldn't read or write texts on her phone anyway while driving anyway, but I was using a generic example. Still, I wouldn't rely on it and text her if I knew she was driving.)

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[yakovlev]

The problem is that now, with this ruling in hand, anyone who texted someone near when they were in an accident is likely to get sued. They will then have to prove that they did not know that the person was driving. This is a civil suit, and I believe preponderance of evidence is the standard, not reasonable doubt.

But, what if the sender *should* have known. A very good example of this is above, where someone pointed out that if my roommate recently left to go to the store, and I realize that we forgot to put Orange Juice on the list, I could be liable for texting them to that effect. A lawyer would argue that I *should* have known they were driving if not enough time has passed for them to actually reach the store.

Basically, this is a great big gift to lawyers in New Jersey. If someone texted a driver involved in an accident, they will now be sued along with the driver. On the other hand, if I texted someone around the time that they were in an accident, I would now need to call a defense lawyer.

Can I invent a scenario where the sender who is not the driver *should* be liable? Yes, I can.
If I am a judge, should I mention that hypothetical in a ruling unless I already have that case before me? NO. Why? because even insinuating that such a situation exists is just inviting lawyers to vigorously try to determine just what the limits are for that type of liability, at the expense of what I'm sure will be many innocent individuals. Sometimes as a judge what you don't say or rule on is as important as what you do. This is a case where ruling on something you didn't have to does more harm than good.

In this case, the judge should have said something like "If I, for the sake of argument, accept the Plaintiff's assertion that defendant could be liable, they would still fail in THIS case because... ... therefore I do not have to rule on the more general question at this time."

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[chrismcb]

Let's say that you're robbing a store after hours and you know your friend brought a gun.

While you may be right in your first assertion, your analogy is flawed. If you DID NOT know your friend brought a gun, and your friend shot and killed someone. You will be liable (well tried for homicide) in the guys death. Shoot, if the cops show up, and shoot your friend, you will be "liable" for his death. Basically if you are involved in a felony, and someone is killed, then EVERYONE guilty of the felony will be charged with homicide as well.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[nitehawk214]

How do you commit vehicular homicide with a motorcycle without also being killed yourself? I suppose if you were wearing a helmet and wreck into a pedestrian or another motorcycle at enough velocity to kill the other party...

Anyhow, there are a lot of other ways this does not make sense.

What if your friend tells you they are going to be driving their vehicle in a dangerous way?

What if the person is not your friend? Are you suddenly responsible for every person you see in the bar having a drink in the event they decide to drive home drunk?

What if I see a person in another vehicle texting while driving. Am I responsible if they harm somebody because I knew about it?

Should I ram anyone I see texting while driving off of the road, in order to save others? (Actually, this doesn't sound like a bad idea, I figure they will end up completely responsible for the accident.)

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[s.petry]

You don't know where she is, you speculate where she is. Even if she told you she was in the parking lot you would not "know" she was not on the road. If you guess that she should have gotten to the store at 2:00 PM, and you text at 2:05 are you sure she is at the store? Not until the act and waiting for the response, and even then it's not "fact" unless your GPS and Spycam rig shows here to be there.

Passing _any_ law, criminal or civil requires clear definitions of not just the crime, but the victim and perpetrator. Adding invisible goblins does not make anyone safer, it makes the law less clear. It makes it easy to rope in perpetrators by convenience, and not perpetrators that actually did something wrong or had bad intent.

Now if you texted something a few minutes after she left, something along the lines of "your mom just called and said she hated you, then committed suicide on the phone" and that was fabricated with the intent of distracting your wife, we already have laws to cover that. It's called abuse.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[thesupraman]

You are completely wrong, as you are assuming that I can know that the driver will act illegally.

As text messages are the equivalent of email or physical letters, I cannot be held responsible for the drivers decision as to when and where to read them.
In fact, even if the 'driver' is responding, how am I to know they are not safetly pulling over, stopping, reading and responding?
How am I to know that they are not having a passenger read/respond?

In other words what you are trying to claim is that I should be repsonsible for the possibility that they MAY act illegally, with no way I can be sure - in fact you seem to think I should be required to assume they will break the law.

That is not valid, in any way, as I can in no way, at the time of sending a text, be aware that they will subsequently break the law!

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[mdielmann]

And here's a more relevant analogy. I work at a liquor vendor. I sell liquor every day, and it's perfectly legal. A guy walks in, appears over the legal drinking age, but I card him anyway, because I really don't want to sell alcohol to a minor. His license is valid, he's over the legal limit, and that's all I know about him. So I sell him his alcohol, and the alcoholic gets into his car, downs it all, and runs over his kid playing in the front yard. Did I do anything wrong? Nope, because what I was doing was legal and correct.

Another analogy. I'm a habitual shoplifter. I go to a store, and they have produce on sale right in front of the store. I don't even have to walk in to steal something! Exactly how much is the store responsible for making it easy for me to break the law?

A final analogy. I'm a woman living in an area where there is a common location for women to be attacked and raped (but still a rare occurrence). I happen to zip through this area because it's quicker than walking in the more public areas, and, surprisingly enough, I get raped (after all, the analogy doesn't work if the law isn't broken). Do I get charged as an accomplice for my own rape?

Now for a hypothetical. I have a friend who I know reads texts while driving. We'll call him my friend with poor risk-assessment skills (this isn't the only example). Let's say he lives in NJ, and that I don't know his driving schedule. When would I not be at risk, legally, due to texting him?

All of these examples have a common thread. Someone does something perfectly legal, and someone else makes a choice to break the law. Why would doing something that is perfectly legal, and not encouraging, aiding, or coercing someone to do something illegal make you responsible for their crimes?

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[drinkypoo]

I disagree. They could have pulled over and answered the first text... and then pulled over again to answer the second text. It's not my fault if they don't pull over either or both of those times. That is their decision.

Luckily I am unlikely to text anyone in NJ. Or call them. Or want to talk to them.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[fafalone]

If you're with your friend, sure. But if your friend comes up to you and says 'hey, I just robbed a store and killed someone!', you are not legally responsible for the act nor obligated to tell the police. With drunk driving, if you're just a bystander, you're not liable if you know your buddy is drunk driving if you're not with him and not providing him with alcohol. You must act in furtherance of an illegal activity after you have knowledge to be liable.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[girlintraining]

Your example is absolutely wrong.

"Hello? Yes, someone on the internet is wrong. You're sending over an illustrated guide to why they're wrong? Thanks, I'll hold."

An example that would fit is that you know your friend bought a gun legally. That is the end of your knowledge. Suddenly the Police show up because your friend committed armed robbery. You were implicated because you had knowledge of the gun, and no knowledge of the crime.

Very. Different. Things. Gun ownership isn't the problem. Gun possession during the commission of a crime is.

An even better example would be this. You know your friend bought a motorcycle. The police show up and arrest you because your friend committed vehicular homicide.

The sky is cloudy. Therefore the police show up and arrest you. Then the price of tea in china doubles. And I saw a kitty walking by my window just now. This all proves you're wrong, as anyone can see! -_- Again... context... you really need to work on this concept.

There is a huge difference between knowing someone owns a legal device (in which a car can be a murder weapon) and knowing that they intent to use it for criminal purposes at some point in the future.

Yeah, just as there's a huge difference between looking at the entire argument, instead of intentionally ignoring a crucial piece of it, then blubbering on about what an idiot the other guy is because 1+ [omitted] = 2, when clearly it should have equalled 1.

Don't confuse my example with your friend buying a gun and telling you he was going to rob a bank.

If your friend buys a gun and tells me he's going to rob a bank, I'm calling the FBI and telling them they need to send an investigator to his house. There's nothing confusing about that. I don't want a bunch of dead people in a bank on my conscience.

Re:Missing the point of text messages...

[girlintraining]

You simply can not know without evidence, and a no law will change that fact.

The law doesn't hold itself to an 'absolute proof' standard, which is unattainable and if that's your standard we should set everyone who has been committed of a crime free. Ever. The law does, however, go to great lengths to figure out what a reasonable person would have done. And the question that your guilt or innocence hinges on here is whether you could have reasonably expected someone who has just indicated they were operating a motor vehicle immediately prior to the communication, may still be doing so at the time of your reply.

Any distraction to the driver puts some responsibility on the person causing the distraction, should as a direct result of their action, another person or persons becomes injured. It doesn't matter whether the instrument was a text message, a beer, a gun, or a flying cow. It doesn't matter if it was in a car, a bicycle, an airplane, or a flying dragon. What matters is that you knew you could cause a distraction, and any reasonable person would conclude that such a distraction could cause an accident.

What you and so many others are arguing is based on an emotional argument; You yourself likely text and drive. And very possibly nothing bad has happened to you. And so, you reason, what's the harm? It's convenient, and it isn't hurting anyone. But this is like continuing to smoke because your grandpa smoked four packs a day and he lived until the age of 92. You're ignoring the evidence that contradicts your position: Namely the fact that the majority of all automobile accidents are caused by distracted driving. You're giving unwarranted weight to your own personal experience.

And that's what's in play all across this forum; A common, readily identifiable, error in cognitive reasoning. And you, like everyone else, will continue to throw rationalization after rationalization after it, coming up with new arguments, ignoring key facts, etc., etc. And the more you're pressed on it, the more defensive you'll get. This is human nature. It's not you personally, it's everyone here. Even me. I've been guilty of this more times than I can count!

But the judge isn't wrong. If you know someone is operating a motor vehicle and you take action that causes that person to become distracted, you've committed a crime. Maybe a small one. Maybe even one nobody really cares about. But by the letter of the law, you're a criminal because somebody got hurt or property was damaged or destroyed as a direct consequence of your action, which you could reasonably have been expected to have foreseen (and thus avoided).

I've never met a guilty man in prison, and 89% of Americans think they're "above average" drivers, but I'm sure that in your specific case, you really didn't know, you're totally innocent, and you really are an above average driver. Be sure to tell the judge that. I bet he'll admire your flawless logic and drop all the charges.

If only.

Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[TechyImmigrant]

You send a text because you know someone is driving, so they can pick it up later rather than answering a voice call.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[C0R1D4N]

A bit more info, our state supreme court is pretty awful and was one of the major issues in our 09 gubernatorial debate. Not that anything much was actually done about it. The idea though is if one of the texts is "I am driving" and you keep replying you are liable. It is still an awful ruling but at least they dont expect you to have ESP

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[TemporalBeing]

You send a text because you know someone is driving, so they can pick it up later rather than answering a voice call.

It's probably more for when the driver responds and the sender responds back in those situations. Thereby they know the driver is actually driving and continued the texting.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[mark-t]

actually, I prefer getting voice calls while driving to text messages, because I can't respond to the latter while driving, while my car has bluetooth, so I can answer an incoming call effectively hands-free with just a single button press, which is located on the steering column.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[SJHillman]

So, texting should require and tags? How do you know when someone is done driving? Can you text them again 5 minutes later? 20 minutes? Are you liable for any texts you send them until they send a "I am not driving" text?. In theory they don't expect you to have ESP, but in practice...

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[Valdrax]

You send a text because you know someone is driving, so they can pick it up later rather than answering a voice call.

And you're not liable unless you have good reason to believe that the person you're texting isn't smart enough not to answer immediately. The harm has to be foreseeable, after all.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[Carewolf]

Answering the call hands free is just a dangerous as answering in one hand. Sorry, but you make a terrible argument.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[squiggleslash]

Read. The. Fucking. Summary.

Seriously. You don't even have to RTFA. Just the summary.

'...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"

This is not about sending texts to people who may or may not be driving. It's not about sending texts to drivers. It's about sending texts to people who are driving, who you already know are going to read your texts while driving.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[mark-t]

When your hands barely leave the steering wheel no more than they would to activate a turning signal, I don't see the problem.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[mark-t]

Perhaps steering column is the wrong word then... but I didn't know what else to call it. It's not actually on the steering wheel itself, but it's not any harder for me to reach while driving than the turning signals or the windshield wiper controls, my hand doesn't even need to fully be removed from the wheel to press it. I can reach it with my right index finger easily while the base of my palm still rests on the outside of the steering wheel and can still steer two-handed.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[gnasher719]

So, texting should require and tags? How do you know when someone is done driving? Can you text them again 5 minutes later? 20 minutes? Are you liable for any texts you send them until they send a "I am not driving" text?. In theory they don't expect you to have ESP, but in practice...

You are really behaving like a little child. Do you need everything in your live prescribed by exact rules, or can you think for yourself?

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[Meyaht]

You have missed the point he was trying to make.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[thesupraman]

So genius, tell me, how can i know that short of sitting next to them and forcing them to read it under duress if they decide not to?

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[radarskiy]

Why is the ruling ridiculous if it agrees with you?

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[radarskiy]

-1. illiterate

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[SJHillman]

That's sort of my point. They're telling you when you can and can't text people. So what are their arbitrary boundaries?

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[mabinogi]

Maybe you can't, in which case, there's no problem. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[TechyImmigrant]

The problem is that there is a judge out there creating on-the-record legal opinion that maybe you can, when obviously you can't, so someone, somewhere, down the road, is going to get screwed by this, because that is how the legal system works.
 

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[dkf]

When your hands barely leave the steering wheel no more than they would to activate a turning signal, I don't see the problem.

It has to do with attention levels. For some reason, texting is exceptionally distracting when driving; this has been measured. Being highly distracted mixes absolutely horribly with driving, especially when there's lots of other traffic about. Because of that, it's by far safer to just never ever mix the two; if you want to read and respond to a text message when driving, park the car first. The laws in question are just about making this especially clear, as it is an all-too-present problem, but the problem exists irrespective of whether the law explicitly bans texting.

Which isn't to say that taking a call when driving is great either. It definitely isn't (again, that's measured). It's just that texting (or the vast majority of using the internet) is even worse.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[dkf]

And you're not liable unless you have good reason to believe that the person you're texting isn't smart enough not to answer immediately. The harm has to be foreseeable, after all.

Or if you have done special inducements to cause the call recipient to take the call without stopping first, such as apparently happened in this case. If you go round seriously trying to get other people to break the law, you better believe that you get some liability from that. This is a substantial part of what "abetting a crime" is about (though it is more commonly referred to as being an accomplice to the crime in the US), and that liability arises from it has been part of US law since at least 1870.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[Slashdot Parent]

You send a text because you know someone is driving, so they can pick it up later rather than answering a voice call.

If I understood correctly, the texter doesn't automatically share in responsibility for the collision just for having sent a text to someone he knew was driving. The texter has to have had reason to believe that the driver was going to read the text while he was driving.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[TechyImmigrant]

If a court got a conviction on that basis, it would be because they chose to do so, but not because they had any proof. Thus an injustice is done and the judge in question is moving the legal system one step closer to that injustice.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[mark-t]

Well, to be fair, I wouldn't take even a hands-free call while driving if the traffic was uncomfortably heavy, and I didn't feel extremely confident I could predict what other drivers were going to do. But in smoothly flowing and uncongested traffic, there's rarely a problem.

Re:Information for the hard of thinking judiciary

[gottabeme]

What's the matter with you? He's pointing out the absurdity of the ruling by following their reasoning to its logical conclusions. You are the one making personal attacks and failing to comprehend his writing. He's on your side. Good grief. Internet...

Realistically...

[barlevg]

There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).

Re:Realistically...

[Registered Coward v2]

There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).

I would think companies may be the most at risk for being held liable. Not that is anything new since they usually are liable for employee actions while working anyway. IANAL, but I see this could mean that if they text someone going home from work and they get into an accident they may be held liable; or even if tehy have written policies against texting while driving if they send a text they could not point to the policy as a possible defense. I would imagine it would be harder to hold a family member or close friend liable.

Re:Realistically...

[studpuppy]

i dunno.

World is full of stupid people. Easy to imagine someone on the witness stand saying "We kept telling Ed not to text-and-drive. It's such a shame that he didn't want to wait until he stopped to read my text message to pick up milk."

Re:Realistically...

[ShieldW0lf]

There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility. And, in that case, this makes about as much sense as holding a passenger in the car liable if they were being purposefully distracting or disruptive (IMO: perfectly valid).

I think it's a stupid law, but that's just not true. There have been lots of times I got a text message while driving, replied "sry drvn" at a red light, and then got several more messages in the next 60 seconds from the same person. I don't think I've EVER had someone text me while I was behind the wheel and NOT replied with that string, honestly... perhaps a few times when I was having a dialog trying to figure out where someone was, but in that case, the fact that I'm driving is obvious to the other party.

The responsibility is mine, of course, because there's nothing compelling me to actually look at the phone every time it beeps. But finding proof that the person on the other end knew I was driving would be trivially easy.

Re:Realistically...

[0123456]

World is full of stupid people.

Unfortunately, many of them get to make laws.

Re:Realistically...

[barlevg]

I think it's a stupid law

For the record, it's a legal opinion (one that could be overturned by a higher court, btw).

And my argument isn't that the plaintiff would need to prove he or she knew you were driving but that he or she knew you'd read the text while driving as opposed to while idling at a stop light.

Re:Realistically...

[Jmc23]

a:busy?

b:Just driving to work.

a:but you have time for me right?

b:always

a:blah blah blah blah

b: blah blah {crash}

Re:Realistically...

[bws111]

Not so. As an example, I know someone who was rear-ended by a Verizon truck. The driver of the truck was checking texts from his dispatcher. Why was he doing that while driving? Per his explanation, it counted against them if they did not acknowledge an instruction in a certain amount of time. Now, Verizon settled this case quickly, but I can imagine if it were more serious it would have gone to court. And I can absolutely see Verizon being held responsible for putting the employee in a position like that.

Re:Realistically...

[matazar]

Except regardless of what you do, I would still expect you to not look at your phone while driving.

I would also send the rest of whatever I was going to say. How often do you read a text, decide you will respond to it later and then forget all about it. It's YOUR responsibility to drive legally. You aren't force to check your messages while driving. If it's that important or you just can't wait then you need to pull over.

Re:Realistically...

[barlevg]

And don't you feel that Verizon *should* be held liable in that case? My point was simply that the summary was making this seem so extreme, but in reality, the circumstances where this could be applied are very narrow.

Re:Realistically...

[bws111]

Yes, I do feel that Verizon should be held liable. I agree that the circumstances are very narrow and the summary was making it seem extreme. My objection was just to your use of the word 'never'. There are real cases where it makes sense to hold the texter liable, but they are indeed rare.

Re:Realistically...

[fnj]

I would still expect you to not look at your phone while driving.

That is a rather unrealistic expectation. Not stare at it for 10 seconds? Agreed absolutely. Not to glance at it momentarily, ever? Weeeeeell ...

Do you also expect no one will ever glance at his speedometer? Odometer (while following directions with distances)? Clock? Radio? GPS? Heater/AC? How about having impure thoughts about someone who looks like a 21 year old model crossing the street in a bikini? Does it matter whether you are going 60 mph or 5 mph? How about stopped at a red light? They nail you for texting while stationary at a red light, you know.

Re:Realistically...

[fnj]

World is full of stupid people.

Unfortunately, many of them get to make laws.

Best. Comment. Ever.

Re:Realistically...

[Guppy]

World is full of stupid people.

So meet me at the mission at midnight, we'll divvy up there.

Re:Realistically...

[Livius]

It would help if someone could think of an example of actually knowing someone is driving versus was driving a minute beforehand but had been smart enough to pull over and stop.

Re:Realistically...

[omnichad]

And that wouldn't be because the dispatcher texted the driver, but because Verizon had a formal policy that required breaking the law.

Re:Realistically...

[omnichad]

And they could also have just expected the driver to pull over, so I suppose even that's not 100% clear.

Telepathy

[Freshly Exhumed]

Thank goodness that our telepathic abilities are so capable that we can all tell from any distance that the other person is driving.

Re:Telepathy

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Unfortunately we can never use our telepathic abilities, because that just might interefere with someone who is driving.

Re:Telepathy

[RandlGuy]

I think the point the judge was trying to make is that if you text someone with the knowledge that they are driving and texting back under certain circumstance you may be liable. Also, since that opinion does not seem to be part of the decision it is not tested in court so is not actually part of the law, just harder to throw out such a case as having no merit. The implications of such a law might be a little too much as it would be risky to text or even call someone with directions if they were lost.

Re:Telepathy

[Valdrax]

Also, since that opinion does not seem to be part of the decision it is not tested in court so is not actually part of the law, just harder to throw out such a case as having no merit. The implications of such a law might be a little too much as it would be risky to text or even call someone with directions if they were lost.

Well, the statement is just dicta, but it's pretty much a straightforward application of negligence. I don't think there's anyone who has passed torts who would find the statement all that controversial in principle (though you can always quibble the facts of any individual case).

Asynchronous ?

[kevinbr]

Unlike a phone call, a text message has the expectation to be read when the receiver chooses. I send text messages to people I know are driving so the message is there when they stop.

Re:Asynchronous ?

[bws111]

A text message does not have an 'expectation'. The sender of a text message does. So in your case, your expectation is that the person will only look when he is not driving. However, some people may have a different expectation, such as a delivery mans boss. He may have the expectation that when he texts his employee, the employee will respond ASAP. And in such a case, the texter should be held liable.

Re:Asynchronous ?

[fnj]

Perhaps you could share with us the thought process behind what appears to be an irrational statement?

Re:Asynchronous ?

[omnichad]

Only if he also has the expectation that the employee not pull off the road to read/respond.

Re:Asynchronous ?

[fnj]

No offense, but you're going to have to do better than that muddle. What we're looking for is a coherent explanation of how processing a received text message while stopped is a hazard. Did you miss the "while stopped" part?

Re:Asynchronous ?

[fnj]

We all make mistakes. I'll take that as an "oops".

No wonder...

[seinman]

No wonder everybody hates New Jersey.

Re:No wonder...

[CanHasDIY]

No wonder everybody hates New Jersey.

Oh, stop exaggerating; everyone does not hate New Jersey.

I, for one, love the incessant comic relief they provide the rest of the nation (save, perhaps, Florida).

Re:No wonder...

[Rude Turnip]

Only in the sense that bigots get relief from making fun of minorities. Otherwise, as someone from NJ, this is some high-level bullshit that should be mocked.

Re:No wonder...

[CanHasDIY]

Only in the sense that bigots get relief from making fun of minorities.

I have no idea what you're on about here.

Otherwise, as someone from NJ, this is some high-level bullshit that should be mocked

Pretty sure that's what I was doing, thanks.

duh

[mjr167]

It's clearly not the fault of the driver for answering the text while driving... Isn't the point of text messaging that you can send it and they can read when convinenent?

Seriously?

[Murdoch5]

That is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. It's up to the driver to not check his or her phone well driving, thats it. It doesn't matter if people are texting you, calling you or even trying to IM you, just don't pick up the phone. This is another example of the pass the buck system of law making. Lets not make any one person responsible for being irresponsible and immature, lets make everyone deal with the fact no one has grown up.

Re:Seriously?

[Jmc23]

...lets make everyone deal with the fact no one has grown up.

You say that like it's a bad thing! Probably a USian fearful someone will take away his precious freedom to act like a child :)

Bulletin boards

[Known Nutter]

Wouldn't this same logic apply to the thousands of roadside bulletin boards (advertisements) along New Jersey roadways? Some of which are getting extremely out of hand and distracting with full color animated displays...

Re:Bulletin boards

[Whorhay]

This is exactly what I was thinking of.

There are always distractions when you are driving. It is up to each driver to focus on the task of driving their vehicle. If the driver decides to prioritize something else like answering a phone, texting, reading a book, watching a movie, adjusting the stereo, or any one of another million possibilities it is up to them to do so in a safe manner.

Re:Bulletin boards

[geekoid]

Yes, and I suspect it won't be long before we see court cases blaming flashing road sighs.
They are SPECIFICALLY designed to distract you from driving.

Re:Bulletin boards

[Livius]

Yes.

Let the class-action lawsuits begin!

Re:Bulletin boards

[omnichad]

You can look away from those. But throw the book at people who operate their full color video screens in "day mode" brightness settings all night long. They have that brightness setting to be visible in sunlight - not to become the sun at night.

Sue the wireless provider

[Anonymous Coward]

The court ruled that while in this case, the person sending the text wasn't liable, they could be if the circumstances were a little different. '...a person sending text messages has a duty not to text someone who is driving if the texter knows, or has special reason to know, the recipient will view the text while driving.'"

There is no real way for an individual to know if the receiver is driving.

But the cell provider knows - it has GPS data or data of towers being used. Meaning as the person is moving they'd be using different towers.

So, it's up to the cell provider to block texts going people in a moving vehicle.

So, the cell providers are liable and therefore, should be sued for the accident because it's their fault.

I think everyone involved deserves at least a million dollars.

Re:Sue the wireless provider

[Fallen Kell]

Except that the same data would show that people who are simply passengers in a moving vehicle would also have their calls blocked when in fact they have no expectation of needing to pay attention to anything.

Re:Sue the wireless provider

[Obfuscant]

There is no real way for an individual to know if the receiver is driving.

Of course there is. "Hey Bob, I'm going to be driving my kid back to Uni this afternoon and I'd like you to keep an eye on the ManU football match for me, ok?" You know he's driving, he TOLD YOU.

But the cell provider knows - it has GPS data or data of towers being used.

Wrong again. GPS/cell site data cannot tell him someone is driving. It only tells the cell provider where he is.

Re:Sue the wireless provider

[omnichad]

And I can't have the phone buzz in my pocket telling me I have something to attend to when I arrive at my destination?

Re:Sue the wireless provider

[gnasher719]

Except that the same data would show that people who are simply passengers in a moving vehicle would also have their calls blocked when in fact they have no expectation of needing to pay attention to anything.

Most phones today have a camera. Add a feature that in order to use your phone while moving at speed, you have to point your camera at a face at more than arm length's distance.

Not to mention social networking.

[Dzimas]

By this logic, you could also be held responsible for an accident after emailing, tweeting or mentioning someone in a Facebook status while they're driving. Come to think of it, phoning someone while they're driving (even if they have handsfree) could be construed as deliberate distraction, as could texting a passenger with important news that might interest the driver. This is bonkers; you can't control how and when someone else uses their phone, nor should you be responsible for their poor choices while driving.

Re:Not to mention social networking.

[bws111]

'By this logic'... What, exacly, is that logic? The thinking that there could possibly be a circumstance where the texter could be held liable (since that is what the judge said)? If that is the issue (and it must be), then your position is that there can be NO circumstances where the texter could be held liable, right?

OK, what about a trucking company that decides it would be a good idea to text it's drivers traffic alerts. The trucker now has a choice: ignore the text, miss the alert, and be late with his delivery (counting against him because he ignored the alert), pull over every time he gets a text, even if it is only a minute since the last one (causing him to be late, counting against him again), or read the text. If he chooses 'read the text' and is involved in an accident, why on earth shouldn't the company be held responsible for putting him in that position? They know he is driving, it is his job. They know he will read text because the consequences of not reading the text fall on him.

Re:Not to mention social networking.

[Dzimas]

Unless the sender is holding a gun to your head, there should be no reasonable expectation that a text message will be acted on immediately. As others in this thread have noted, SMS is asynchronous and there is no social expectation of immediate response. Even in the case of your fictitious trucking company, it is doubtful that a prosecutor could demonstrate that the company expects drivers to break the law and read texts while piloting a heavily laden vehicle.

Re:Not to mention social networking.

[bws111]

There is no prosecutor, because this is not about criminal law. This is a civil law, about deciding who is responsible for an accident. There can be more than one responsible party. And you are seriously deluding yourself if the think the following exchange is unlikely:

Plaintiff: Were you reading a text?
Trucker: Yes
P: Why?
T: My company sends out traffic alerts as text messages
P: And why is that important enough for you to break the law by reading them?
T: Because if I miss the alert and get caught in traffiic my delivery will be late. And the company has a policy that three late deliveries in a month is grounds for termination.
P: Is it true that you send out text alerts for traffic problems?
Boss: Yes
P: Is it true that you have a policy of termination for late delivery?
B: Yes
P: Do you expect your drivers to break the law by reading these texts?
B: Certainly not. We expect the driver to look at the texts the next time he stops
P: And how many times does a driver stop on a 200 mile trip
B: Generally none
P: I see. So why did you sent him the text?
B: He should pull over to read the texts
P: Do you provide him with a phone to be used only for receiving these texts?
B: No
P: So you expect him to pull over every time anyone sends him a text?
B: Yes
P: Wouldn't that make him late, possibly later than being caught in traffic?
B: Maybe
P: So why do you send the texts, if he doesn't make any scheduled stops, and he can't realistically pull over every time his phone beeps?
B: Um
P: Are you sure you don't think he will read your texts while driving?

Re:Not to mention social networking.

[gnasher719]

Unless the sender is holding a gun to your head, there should be no reasonable expectation that a text message will be acted on immediately.

I know people where it is entirely unreasonable to expect that they are not reading the text message immediately.

y duznt he like me?

[themushroom]

Teenage girls who freak out if a boy doesn't reply in 20 seconds aside, of course.

More thought crime? I'm shocked! *NOT*

[s.petry]

For this to happen, we would need to change our whole judicial view point which requires intent (mens rea). Either that, or negligence needs to become so broad that everyone is a criminal all the time. Negligence requires a common sense factor that you knew ahead of time that something could happen. Yelling "Fire" is a great example of the application in a sane system. Unfortunately we have not been sane for quite some time.

Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.

Quoting my favorite Philosopher, Socrates: "Justice can not be gained by an unjust system. The two ideas contradict each other."

attempted murder

[Anonymous Coward]

T-Mobile (my provider) just sent me a free ads text message while I was driving, can I sue them for attempting my murder?

April 1st

[CanHasDIY]

Is it just me, or are things getting to the point where nary a day goes by without some headline causing us to check and make sure it's not April Fool's?

I swear, I've never seen policies as ridiculous as what's coming out nowadays. Even Caligula would balk at some of this shite.

Re:April 1st

[wisnoskij]

I think it is getting worse. I have checked twice this month alone if it was April 1st.

Re:April 1st

[geekoid]

Ir's not policy. It wasn't even part of the ruling. Just some judges opinion on law.

Re:April 1st

[CanHasDIY]

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+policy

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+precedent

Bigger picture

[Anonymous Coward]

Being in New Jersey can make you liable for being in New Jersey

Simple solution...textsecure

[TheCarp]

I use textsecure on my phone, and I have now and will continue to maintain that texting CAN be done safely while driving, and that most of the problem with it is based on strawman arguments based on how long a person COULD spend or how long average people spend staring at the phone rather than watching the road.

In no way, of course, would I say that all drivers who text do so safely or even that the majority do, just that nobody has yet shown that it has to be unsafe, or even that it is a significant issue that rises so far above the background as to be worth solving.

That said.... two things stopped me from texting. The first was getting a smart phone....boy are touch screens hard to use without looking at them! However, I have a droid2, which has a physical keypad, basically requires two hands to use.

So this is where textsecure comes in. To read a text message, I have to decrypt my text messages. That means entering a password which requires special chars and capitals, which makes typing it a bit cumbersome. Putting in my password while driving is hard enough that I gave up shortly after setting it up.

Re:Simple solution...textsecure

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but whatever happened to simple self-control?

I tell people that I will not answer my phone while driving, text or voice. Period.

If I absolutely need to send a text or make a call, I ... wait for it! ... pull over somewhere to do it.

Re:Simple solution...textsecure

[TheCarp]

Dunno what happened to it? If you take it from my tone that this was a self control issue, it wasn't, I had no intention to stop texting while driving because I don't see it as inherently dangerous. Nor talking on the phone.

I am pretty convinced that the majority of the issue is the inability of people to recognize the inherent self selection bias in accident data.

Re:Simple solution...textsecure

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I am beginning to believe this line of reasoning more and more. This last winter my beater vehicle got hit twice within a week. The first time I was stopped and got rear ended by someone who had earlier in the day already rear ended another vehicle. The other time was while going down the freeway and someone who didn't bother to look tried to merge into the side of my jeep with focus. The other side of their car was all scraped up because earlier in the week they sideswiped a concrete road barrier. In both cases the other driver didn't want my insurance since I wasn't going to file a claim (trust me if you saw my jeep you would understand) and I didn't add any damage that couldn't have been attributed to their previous accidents.

Re:Simple solution...textsecure

[TheCarp]

When I read the study a light went off in my brain. A light in the specific shape of a man I will call Bob, not because that is his name, just to protect the identity of the stupid.

Most people I know drive. Most drivers, from time to time use their cell phone. Most drivers I know, don't use the cell phone much, and seem to do a fine job of driving even while using it, and know how to choose when NOT to use it.

Not Bob. Nope that guy can't seem to pay attention to much other than his cell phone, not on the road or off. On top of that, he is one of the few people that I swear has almost gotten me killed as a passenger in his car....not even while on the phone, but off it too. He is, in short, an atrocious driver. About the only one I actually avoid getting in the car with as a passenger.

But...he was an atrocious driver before he had a cell phone.

Here is the thing.... If I were to text you while driving, you might get a "yes" or "no", or "I am on my way". Simple, short. This guy.... well I feel strange about posting the exact text of what he said but... right before "I am driving on the highway now" he sent me two messages, each one detailed and about 20 words long....and time stamped within 30 seconds of eachother.

This is more than a question of using the phone or texting, its a question of judgement. Its not whether you text, its when you choose to and how you choose to use it. I find the whole thing a little bit like saying hamburgers make you fat. No, they have a lot of calories, its how often you choose to eat them, and what percentage of your diet they make up that might make you fat, and not, the fact that you eat burgers.

Re:Simple solution...textsecure

[gnasher719]

No offense, but whatever happened to simple self-control?

That's what the judge said. If you know that someone is driving, and you know that the person is an idiot who will reply to text messages without stopping, then you need the simple self-control not to send them messages.

Next will be liability for not sending a text

[c0d3g33k]

Driver: "Yo, dude, I'm headed your way. In my car. Driving it myself. Alone. Tell me where you're at so I can pick you up".
Non-driver: I'd better not send a response since I know my friend is driving and sending a text might be a distraction.

Driver sends multiple texts to non-driver:

Driver: "C'mon man, answer me!"
Driver: "Why don't you ANSWER!!!?"
Driver: "WTF!!!! I will spam u with texts until you tell me where you are!!!".
Driver: "U R M8king me crzy!!! Answer!!!".
Driver: Runs over child at school crossing

Lawyer to non-driver: "Why didn't you respond? You clearly knew Driver would continue to text while driving until you responded. If only you had responded, the driver would have put down the phone and driven safely to your location. You are responsible for the accident because you did not take sufficient measures to ensure the driver would stop texting!"

Non-driver: "FML."

Don't worry about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry. I'm sure that any ignorance in the judicial branch will be swiftly rectified by the legislative branch. Right?

With this line of reasoning...

[chocho99]

...why not make the phone companies liable for transmitting the text to you while you are in a moving car. It's not like they don't already know where you are at all times.

Re:With this line of reasoning...

[kcwhitta]

Because you could be on a bus or train?

Re:With this line of reasoning...

[omnichad]

Passengers. Trains. Subway.

So if I send a text saying

[phorm]

So if I send a text saying

"Call me when you get to [destination]" or "Call me when you're not driving"

what's my liability there?

Simple Math

[imatter]

The more people that are liable the more lawyers you need to defend them.

It's New Jersey

[oldhack]

It's not just teen guidos/guidettes clowning on tv, it's the whole state.

Re:It's New Jersey

[jfdavis668]

They also don't let you pump your own gas. If they did, you might try to do it while driving, and we can't have that.

Well, that escalated quickly.

[VortexCortex]

If I'm going to do the time, might as well do the crime...

If my text messages sent to a driver may cause me to be liable for the crash, then I guess I'll just have to hack the car's Android API and drive it remotely while they answer my text messages.

Delayed Messages

[UltraZelda64]

So if I send a message at 2:15 PM, and the recipient has his or her phone off for a while, but then has the brilliant idea to turn it back on at 3:30 PM while driving on the highway and starts using the phone and reads the message, then I'm at fault for the idiot's unsafe driving behavior a full hour and fifteen minutes before it happened? Just the idea of this is beyond fucked up. Here's an idea: Nail the idiots that drive with questionable habits. Not the people who not only aren't with them, but may not even know what they're even doing at a specific point in time to begin with.

Re:Delayed Messages

[SJHillman]

The summary is about half the length of your post, and yet still answers every question you have. The texter is only liable if they are told or reason to know the text will be viewed specifically while driving.

Re:Delayed Messages

[UltraZelda64]

Except you're conveniently ignoring the extreme likelihood of error, lies, whatever, which may then be used against the person who sent the message to bail the driver out of the deep shit that *they* are likely deserve. The whole point of a cell phone is that you can take them wherever you go--even to the shitter--and no one is going to broadcast to everyone they know where they are going to be all day, 24/7. I'm pretty sure a truck driver is one of the only classes of people whose likely current actions (either driving or sleeping) can easily be guessed by the people they know. Everyone else? Not so simple.

Simple solution? Don't fuck with your phone while driving.

Its easy to forget

[Maudib]

That most judges are also lawyers.

So the are just as fucked in the head and share the same vested interest in destroying life for the rest of us as do normal lawyers.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

The recipient of a gunshot would could be held liable for their own harm due to their knowledge that a bullet would harm/kill them. Extrapolation is fun.

In other news, traffic reporters held liable...

[Nadaka]

In other news, traffic reporters held liable for distracting drivers on busy roads.

Obiter dictum

[sanchom]

It's not binding precedent.

Re:Obiter dictum

[sanchom]

Ah I'm wrong. But still: > To summarize our conclusions, we do not hold that someone who texts to a person driving is liable for that person's negligent actions.

Opportunity is Knocking

[bigwheel]

Here's you chance to write an app that postpones texts until the GPS says you've stopped for more than a couple minutes. Implementation details are left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Opportunity is Knocking

[omnichad]

And then your battery's dead, negating the texting issue.

I totally like that!

[MarkvW]

If you know the guy's driving and you purposefully distract him and accident is caused as a result . . . you ought to have to share the burden of paying for the harm you caused along with the driver.

Re:I totally like that!

[mjr167]

I could see your logic if, for example, you were giving the driver a blow job. But by sending a text message, you do not force the driver to answer the phone. It is actually fairly easy to not answer the phone.

Shock jocks and passengers

[BetaDays]

So will the law extend to radio stations with shock jocks or passengers in the car? Or even better yet phone calls?

Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[Valdrax]

Would seem that any action that distracts a driver would then be fair game.

Yes. If and only if, your actions were negligent (or worse) in doing so. Negligence requires that your actions be a proximate cause of the harm and that the results be reasonably foreseeable.

In the hypothetical laid out by the judge, if you knew the person (a) was a driving AND (b) had a propensity to recklessly respond to messages, then you in fact would bear some responsibility for calling someone with those properties in spite of the known risk in doing so. That is, unless the cost of not contacting the driver was greater than the cost of the harm times the risk of it occurring or unless some affirmative defense like necessity applies. Etc. Etc.

There's nothing especially controversial from a legal standpoint about the argument he's making -- it's a straightforward application of the criteria for negligence.

Re:Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[Valdrax]

if my wife leaves for the grocery store. she asked me before she left if i wanted anything but i didn't notice we were out of orange juice until after she left. i know she quite possibly is still driving when i text her, to not forget the orange juice. however, i very much don't expect her to check the text message while she is still driving, i expect her to check it after she reaches the store.

so how am i negligent for texting someone that i know is driving? the text message doesn't need instant attention.

The key there is that you "very much don't expect her to check the text message while she is still driving." If you don't have reason to believe she will act dangerously as a result of your actions, then if she causes an accident by acting in an unforeseeable way, then you are not liable. You would have to know or a reasonably objective person would have to have reason to believe that she would act irresponsibly to be responsible as well.

Re:Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[parkinglot777]

That's a very interesting point and answer. I am wondered about what you think in this case. Supposedly, A knows that B is driving but doesn't expect B to be distracted when A texts B. So A texts B and B responds (regardless who starts the texting session). During their texting session (while B is still driving and A knows that B is driving but believe that B is not being distracted by the text), B was texting back and rear end another car in front at the same time (and may cause a lot of damage). Would A be liable for the accident as well under the law??? I am just curious and thanks for answering.

Re:Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[nitehawk214]

Unless the person sending the message had a stipulation that the receiver would be fired, fined, or otherwise punished for not immediately reading and replying; how is ti negligent to send someone a message... driving or not.

Re:Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[thesupraman]

So, tell me, if I know someone is a bad driver, and you dont actively stop them from driving, and they hitkill someone, are you responsible?
By your logic, then yes - in fact everyone who knew they were a bad driver was responsible.
What if I knew someone had a habbit of eating too fast, and they choked themselves to death on a lump of steak, and I resposible?

You argument is complete and utter rubbish. negligence does NOT work like this, at all.

Re:Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[Valdrax]

Unless the person sending the message had a stipulation that the receiver would be fired, fined, or otherwise punished for not immediately reading and replying; how is ti negligent to send someone a message... driving or not.

Well, in the former case, I think that steps beyond basic negligence into gross negligence / recklessness.

The basic concept of negligence, as linked above, is that "people should exercise reasonable care when they act by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause harm to other people." If you know someone else is driving, and you know that your actions will cause them not to pay attention to the road, then you know that your actions cause potential harm. It's basic common sense.

Generalizing the question beyond that is pointless. That's like asking, "How can talking to someone be illegal?" after finding out that someone was arrested for trying to hire a hitman.

Re:Yes, under the basic principles of negligence.

[JoelKatz]

But that is a heckler's veto, recognized as invalid in the United States. Under this kind of reasoning, I can silence anyone I want by creating a situation where their speech is likely to cause a foreseeable risk of harm to others. For example, if a guy is preaching on a bus, even where he has a perfect right to preach, I can force him to either stop preaching or risk tort liability by simply saying, "If you don't stop preaching, I'll slap the driver, creating a risk of a traffic accident". In the United States, we don't hold people liable for how other people choose to react to their speech acts, even if that reaction is reasonably foreseeable, even if it is intended. (Except under very narrow circumstances nothing like the circumstances involved here.)

There should be

[rossdee]

A Federal ban on Text Messages

Not only woild this mean safer driving, it would also improve workplace productivity, education, and dining at restaurants.

And save the NSA some mponey too.

Psychic Crime

[RoknrolZombie]

So it's only a crime if you're psychic?

I never thought it would happen...

[RoboRay]

Finally! An end to telemarketing!

Amber alerts

[sect0r0]

Does that mean the state could be held liable if they send amber alerts to someone driving?

Dumbassery....

[PontifexMaximus]

This is just more proof that America has lost its collective mind. When did personal RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY become anathema? Seriously, this is just a bloody joke. Why not just say the person texting and driving was a victim not only of the TEXTER but also the Telecom who passed the text along. Shouldn't they also be liable in this case on this basis? Everyone in America is a victim nowadays.

I've had 6 surgeries due to RA in the last 4 years. I should probably sue my parents for passing on bad genes. When will this stupidity end?

Re:Dumbassery....

[kesuki]

"When will this stupidity end?"

when robots learn how to deal with devide by zero and causality loops without needing a human to notice and hit the reset button and can conquest the human race into non important jobs.

Not even hard in many cases.

[Valdrax]

There will likely never be a situation where the non-driving texter can be held responsible. Burden of proof will always be on the plaintiff, and proving that the non-driver knew that the driver would read his or her texts while driving will almost always be a legal impossibility.

You're right, if there's only a single message involved before the accident.

You're very, very wrong if a conservation develops between the two parties. Then the only burden involved is showing that the one party knew the other was driving at the time, which may be easy to tell from the conversation itself or from other evidence (knowing the other's schedule, having sent the driver to grocery store, the driver is on their way to the other party, etc.). If they did know that, and they receive a reply, then they have prima facie evidence that any further messages create a hazard.

Oh, and there's the question of whether or not this is an acknowledged habit, which could be picked up by subpoenaing other conversations between the two.

Ban distracting radio commercials

[jfdavis668]

Ones with honking horns or police sirens are quite dangerous.

Ridiculous ...

[gstoddart]

If I text someone, and I have no idea where they are or what they are in the middle of doing ... how the hell can I be liable for whatever the recipient did thereafter?

Nothing about me texting you compels you to read the damned thing while you're driving. One of the nice things about text messages is you can ignore it for a little bit because it's not real time -- that the recipient chose to do something stupid is entirely their own problem.

Increasingly, I am convinced that judges in the US don't have the barest grasp of logic.

Can we extend this to say that gun makers/auto makers are liable if they allow a gun/car to come into the hands of someone with a temper or any history of bad judgement? Because this is basically saying you're now responsible for the actions of anybody you could reasonably conclude does stupid things.

no.

[damn_registrars]

It's clearly not the fault of the driver for answering the text while driving

I'm not sure they are excusing the driver for being an idiot, they are just saying that there was an idiot accomplice who contributed to the crash.

Isn't the point of text messaging that you can send it and they can read when convinenent?

No, the purpose of text messaging - at least in the US - is to maximize the profitability of the cellular networks. Even if you have an "unlimited texting plan" on your cell phone you are saving your cell phone company bucketloads of money every time you send a text rather than making a phone call, regardless of how quickly you can read and write messages.

That said, the people who send the most messages - and are most likely to get in a car accident while dealing with them - don't wait until it's "convenient".

Essentially makes texting illegal all the time

[kheldan]

How can you prove that you didn't know someone you sent a text message to was driving or not, or that they'd read it while driving? If allowed to stand then nobody would be able to text anyone, ever, for fear of being guilty of potentially causing an accident. Rediculous.

Re:Essentially makes texting illegal all the time

[jfdavis668]

I think this makes everything illegal that may in some way impact drivers.

Re:Essentially makes texting illegal all the time

[kheldan]

No, you are the one who does not understand.

You can't know whether someone is driving or not driving unless you can see them when you send the text message. Ignorance of the law has never been a valid legal excuse in this country. If what this judge was the law of the land, you in essence never be able to text anyone, anytime, unless you knew for certain they never, ever drive, because unless you were in line-of-sight of them or otherwise could know with 100% certainty that they would both not be driving and would not read said text message while driving, then you would be considered liable for any accident they might cause due to texting while driving.

Now go back to 4chan and troll there, you're not cutting it here, jackass.

Hmm

[Anarchduke]

Does this mean I won't be receiving Amber Alert messages on my cellphone anymore? Because they are sending it to all cellphones, they know for certain some people will receive the text while driving.

What about service providers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we not also hold the service providers liable for delivering text messages to people that are likely to look at them while driving?

Shared liability

[Valdrax]

It's clearly not the fault of the driver for answering the text while driving...

The judge doesn't say or even imply that. The sender's liability is merely in addition to the driver's liability, and most juries would probably apportion the majority of the liability on the driver if in a jurisdiction in which they don't simply have joint liability.

Ok.. here's the problem

[houbou]

The "texter" is sending a message. how can this person know if the recipient of said text is driving? It's like sending an e-mail. You are sending the e-mail or the text message but have NO expectations of instant feedback. This is bogus to try to put the blame on the sender..

Responsibility on reading any form of transmission should rest squarely on the shoulders of the person reading said transmission.

Whatever happened to personal accountability?


And for example, let's say the recipient does inform the sender that they are driving.. Then what? even if the sender keeps on sending messages, all the recipient has to do is drive, and ignore the device. Surely when you are in a safe area, you can then look at the stupid messages.

Again, we can't be in control of others, but should always be in control of ourselves.

The premise for these laws are utterly ridiculous.

What a serious waste of tax payers monies.

Re:Ok.. here's the problem

[gnasher719]

Whatever happened to personal accountability?

How come that every single time this question is asked, it is by someone denying personal responsibility? Is that an American thing, denying responsibility and trying to shift it to someone else?

Re:Ok.. here's the problem

[houbou]

Not denying anything. Just saying, when I drive, if I read a text, I'm responsible if something happens and it distracts me. That simple. I am responsible. That is 'personal accountability'. It shouldn't be 'an American thing', it should just be what's right.

Dram shop liability.

[Valdrax]

Does this mean that liquor companies/distributors/salespeople/bar tenders will now get in trouble if they sell alcoholic beverages to someone that might drive while under the influence of this alcohol?

Yes. It's called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop>dram shop liability. It's a little more strict than "might drive while under the influence of alcohol," but in essence, you are not allowed in any state (as far as I am aware) to continue serving people who are visible intoxicated. Some states actually criminalize this as "serving intoxicated people." In most states, this requires the person to be just blatantly hammered first, but not all. Some states also extend dram shop liability to social hosts (e.g. people holding a party).

Does it work for sleeping too?

[WaffleMonster]

If someone sends me a text while they know I'm sleeping and know I have to drive to work in the morning can they be held liable when I get into my car and allide with a stationary lamp post due to lack of sleep caused by the text messages?

One of the fucked up things about this country is number of lawyers and their illogical influence on production and interpretation of law having the effect of reinforcing gainful employment of lawyers. Last I remember US has something on order of half the worlds lawyers yet carries only 5% of its population.

In an environment where everyone can be blaimed for the stupidity of others or actions beyond their control then everyone is guilty of something which seems to me to be the goal. The more common sense is thrown out the window the more productivity and society suffers.

God help us all if Kevin Bacon ever gets hauled into court.

We need an app

[Provocateur]

where the sender also feels the impact of the collision that he caused, airbags or not.

Why should Darwinian evolution be applied only on one end?

Re:Proof

[Xtifr]

You watched Joe drive away, and you know he lives 20 minutes away, and you texted him after 5. Or, your text was sent five minutes after Joe's text saying "Ok, I'm hopping in my car now, will arrive in 20 minutes". Or...

Actually, knowledge of the gun is irrelevant.

[Valdrax]

What the GP roughly paraphrases (but gets key details of wrong), is the basic principles of felony murder. The doctrine of felony murder simply holds that if someone dies while you are in the process of committing an inherently dangerous felony (i.e. a violent one), whether that death is deliberate or accidental, you are guilty of murder for that death. In this case, what hurts you because of your friend's felony murder is that the doctrine extends to all co-conspirators in the original felony.

It's a highly controversial doctrine, because in many states, it carries the death penalty, and it requires no intent to kill, and it requires little to no foreseeability or only tenuous causation. A more extreme example would be that you would be guilty of felony murder if someone got scared and had a heart attack during the robbery.

Knowledge of the gun has absolutely nothing to do with it -- just willing participation in a conspiracy to commit or in the commission of a dangerous felony.

Re:Actually, knowledge of the gun is irrelevant.

[girlintraining]

What the GP roughly paraphrases (but gets key details of wrong), is the basic principles of felony murder.

I see your wikipedia link, and raise you a illustrated guide.

Knowledge of the gun has absolutely nothing to do with it -- just willing participation in a conspiracy to commit or in the commission of a dangerous felony.

Yes, but it's a separate (but related) issue. Flip back a page and you'll see the exact example I used; a plate being thrown at someone and then them falling on it and dying. It was manslaughter by that definition.

But we're getting off topic; the judge didn't rule this applies if you have NO prior knowledge; He said it was a crime if you did. And that's pretty solid, legally speaking. There's no controversy there; If you can prove that the defendant had good cause to believe the text message would be read by someone while operating a motor vehicle, you're not getting out of it. The key facts here are immediacy, and prior knowledge. The chance that someone might be operating a motor vehicle isn't sufficient -- I think the judge is right here. That's reasonable. But if it's not just possible, but would be found to be likely by a reasonable person, you're screwed.

Re:Actually, knowledge of the gun is irrelevant.

[Valdrax]

Yes, but it's a separate (but related) issue. Flip back a page and you'll see the exact example I used; a plate being thrown at someone and then them falling on it and dying. It was manslaughter by that definition.

Err, I hate to tell you this, but reading back up the direct chain of posts to the top of the thread, I don't see anything about manslaughter or a plate. Maybe you used it in a response to someone else?

The statement you bolded was: "If you have knowledge of illegal activity, regardless of your own intent, etc. and fail to act you're just as guilty as the person who did it." My point was that's simply not true in general, and in the case of felony murder, it's the foreseeability of the harm that matters. The knowledge is just evidence of foreseeability, not the determining factor.

Mere knowledge of an illegal activity without reporting or resisting it does not indicate criminal conspiracy. You have to commit some overt activity that indicates willingness to join in the action. The same principle applies to felony murder. Just knowing your neighbor has a gun and is planning to rob a bank doesn't make you a conspirator.

As for the issue with texting and foreseeability, well, I've already posted several other posts defending the judge's words there.

I send texts to people who are driving

[Wild_dog!]

I do this all the time.
I don't expect them to read them until they get where they are going.
But I send info that is pertinent to what is going on or necessary.
When they stop, they can get the message I sent and respond if they need to.

Why doesn't this make billboards illegal in NJ?

[schwit1]

And every sign on the road.

If the signs are there to get the attention of drivers how is this different than a text message?

Alerts?

[Bugler412]

So I guess government agencies will be responsible for the accidents when they send Amber/weather/disaster alerts to the entire population of a region simultaneously? Yeah, right. If you're sending an alert to as many as ten million people simultaneously (NYC mobile phone users?) there is definitely a reasonable assumption that at least some portion of them are driving when they receive it. And on my handset at least those things are LOUD (I've since disabled most of them) This ruling is stupid beyond description.

I declare shenanigans!

[rsmith84]

You can't police free will that way and expect everyone to blindly comply. Who does NJ think they are? The NSA?

Re:have you ever been on a jury?

[omnichad]

In theory, it's possible for the ground wire being severed and the lights still work - if the ground was connected to the trailer body and strong enough contact was made at the hitch with the truck pulling it. The truck's frame is already connected to ground.

Probably a good time to say IANAL.

[Valdrax]

Note: I am not a lawyer, and this should not constitute legal advice.

Supposedly, A knows that B is driving but doesn't expect B to be distracted when A texts B. So A texts B and B responds (regardless who starts the texting session). During their texting session (while B is still driving and A knows that B is driving but believe that B is not being distracted by the text), B was texting back and rear end another car in front at the same time (and may cause a lot of damage).

In this scenario, if B has responded and A continues to text, then A knows enough to theoretically be liable. The core question that will come down to the jury is whether or not a reasonable person in possession of all the same facts would believe that their actions would distract B or whether that distraction was unforeseeable. The reasonable person standard is an objective one; it ignores whether A subjectively believed B shouldn't be distracted in favor of whether or not is was reasonable to do so.

Personally, I think it would be hard to get a jury to rule that it was reasonable to expect that a person could carry on a safe conversation while driving (especially in the face of evidence that would slant perception of the actual risks in the other direction in the form of the crash).

What utter balls

[mendax]

This NJ court is nuts. Sending a text message is quite innocuous and quite safe. What is not safe if the idiot behind the wheel to check the message without first pulling off the road or waiting for the next traffic light to read the message. After all, the phone stores the message! I hope this decision is appealed.

Re:What utter balls

[mendax]

Well, a careful reading of this article tells me that it's not as bad as it seems. I haven't read the opinion but based upon what the article says it seems that what the court says about the sender of the text message also possibly being liable for an accident the driver is at-fault for is mere dicta and carries less authority as precedent. So, not so bad after all.

What about the one who suggested what to text?

[opus_magnum]

And what about the one who encouraged them? Where does this end?

No duty to act rule.

[Valdrax]

So, tell me, if I know someone is a bad driver, and you dont actively stop them from driving, and they hitkill someone, are you responsible?

No, that's covered under the "duty of care" requirement of negligence. There is a strong legal distinction between pushing someone off a cliff, selling them a cheap rope that breaks and causes them to fall, and walking away if they're clinging to the edge.

You have no duty to take positive action to stop someone else from doing something that may cause themselves or others harm. You are, in common law jurisdictions, generally not required to save someone from drowning, for example. That is quite different from the duty not to take an action that causes them to harm or be harmed, which is what negligence is about.

The basics of the tort of negligence are pretty accessible to the layman compared to other areas of the law. I recommend starting with the Wikipedia article I linked above and go from there, reading each of the subsections they present. Learning negligence law and applying it before taking an action may save you a lot of money in the long run as well as simply teach basic mindfulness towards others.

Obligatory XKCD reference

[Razgorov Prikazka]

>> What if I place a phone call to someone I know, or "have a special reason to know", may be sneezing... http://what-if.xkcd.com/55/

Whats next? Making witchcraft & sorcery illegal?
Oh, wait...
What?
Ah... that's my fault, that bit belongs to the Saudi's and their great thinkers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18503550
But this is about as stupid isn't it?

Facebook has reasonable knowledge, too

[Overzeetop]

FB does have reasonable knowledge if you are driving. Since most cars are operated with only one person inside (statistically), and FB is location aware, it can tell when you are moving at reasonable velocity along a road. The statistics are in favor of you driving during that time. The ignore the likelihood would clearly be reckless endangerment on the part of Facebook. In fact, they should be liable for damages not just to the person you hit, but to you as well.

Hey - you know some lawyer is going to try this angle at some point.

Lawyer

[Overzeetop]

Any idiot can make up a scenario were doing X is illegal and another scenario were not doing X is illegal.

The word you're looking for is "lawyer"

holding people responsible would be interesting

[Chirs]

If people were solely responsible for their own actions, then all offences of the form "inciting x" couldn't be an offence because the people involved chose to do it.

It also means that police entrapment wouldn't be a defence, because the person could have refused to do it.

It would likely also mean that nobody could claim provocation as a defence.

You Know, Neither Of Them

[Greyfox]

Neither of them has NEARLY as much money as the phone company, who with location data can tell the owner of the phone is on a road going REALLY fast! There's absolutely no technical reason they couldn't disable text messaging to or from that phone that's in a moving vehicle! If you already feel that someone who knows that person's driving can be held liable then the obvious next step is to sue the phone company that knew he was in a moving vehicle, for TEN MILLION DOLLARS!

Re:More thought crime? I'm shocked! *NOT*

[Obfuscant]

Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.

Once you explain how the official who issued the amber alert would know that you are driving and would read the message while doing so, your logic makes perfect sense.

NSA's fault?

[matthelm007]

Wait, since the NSA is monitoring all messages, and they also know where you are and what you are doing, and have the resources, since they don't have to fill out wiretapping forms anymore, it's ALL their fault!!!!

SMS is a store-and-forward system

[badzilla]

When you send a text message you have no guarantee of delivery time. In many cases it will reach the recipient in just a few seconds but you do not know that for sure. It could get there immediately, after an hour, after two days, who knows. I have had messages take longer than one week to arrive.

So the sender cannot know if the message will get delivered at the same time that the recipient is driving.

It's almost as bad as this...

[BobSutan]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9194523

tl;dr - Woman gets drunk, drives, then winds up killing some people. For some reason the state charged the guy who bought her some of the drinks. /facepalm

How about we just stick to holding people accountable for their actions instead of shifting the blame to others, mmmkay?

Voice to text, text to voice...

[realsilly]

A friend of mine has an app on her iPhone that will convert what she says on the phone's mic to text. Why then can't the text message be converted back, so that the receiver can receive the text in the form of a voice-text?

Shit in this scenario, if the sender knew the driver was on the road, then a bit more care in what is written so the text could be converted would simplify the entire argument.

Sadly, I know the response to this, the sender just doesn't give a shit. Many people don't know how to write proper English anymore, so why would they try to be more concise for a text to voice message.

Hell for that matter, just go back to CB radio then...

Chem warfare causes a hostile work environment

[RobertLTux]

If somebody decides to bath in perfume then i will track down some selenophenol and start spraying that near them.

hint folks if i can smell you when i am 15 meters away YOU HAVE TO MUCH STINK ON.

That is New Jersey in a Nutshell

[tjstork]

First Mt. Laurel and Abbot decisions, then, massive property taxes, and now this. What was once the Garden State is turning itself into a wasteland.

Completely ridiculous

[jbee02]

This argument would be more valid if it was a phone call. Phone call need or desire am immediate response or as soon as possible. If you don't require a response or you don't need to an immediate response texting is the most appropriate method. If the message needs to be received and or responded within 6 hr time frame, use a text message. 24 hours or more use an e-mail. You respond to a text at the at the first convenient moment. Driving is not is not that kind of moments. If you need to get a message to someone and you know he's driving a text message is the most appropriate and responsible method to use. If you receive a text while driving, responding to it when you stop for food, gas, a rest stop, or when arrive at your destination is a perfectly socially except able response. If you stupid enough to put your self and others at risk by immediately responding to a message that doesn't demand an immediate response, you are solely responsible. If some one is texting you with the expectation of an immediate response. You need to tell them they're wrong.

Solve the problem

[locrien]

A lot of these issues could be fixed with some proper driver training. We need to stop using laws to try to scare people into responsibility.
Also a decent public transportation system so people who are incapable of driving can have other ways to make a living and get around.

New Jersey...

[MitchDev]

...where intelligence and common sense are against the law

Re:Proof

[david_thornley]

And you know that Joe texts while driving. If I were driving away, you'd be safe from the law. If you're offended by not receiving an answer for 20 minutes, that's your problem.

And Just how are you to know

[rhalstead]

When you press send you have no way of knowing if the Person is in a car or not, If they enforced it, you wouldn't dare text as you have no idea as to the disposition of the recipient.